Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order, 1952, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jersey) Order, 1952, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guernsey) Order, 1952, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kenya) Order, 1952, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Tanganyika) Order, 1952, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uganda) Order, 1952, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Zanzibar) Order, 1952, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PETITION

RAYON INDUSTRY

Mrs. White: I beg to present to the House a Petition signed by between 7,000 and 8,000 rayon workers in Flint, Bagillt, Holywell, and neighbouring districts and their families and friends. After drawing attention to the plight of an area in which the livelihood of so many depends directly and indirectly on the fortunes of the rayon industry, the Petition concludes with these words:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will seek to take notice of the distress caused in the County of Flint by the present lack of employment in the rayon industry and will take measures to secure that immediate aid is given to this industry by the placing of Government contracts and any other means in its power. And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASES)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances attached to the case of Mr. David R. Sapsed of Birchall Farm, Cole Green, Hertford, a deferment can be granted in respect of his military service.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Mr. Sapsed is not eligible for deferment under the agricultural arrangements, and I regret that it is not possible to make an exception in his case. He was, however, granted five months' postponement of call-up, terminating on 12th May last, on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

Mr. Walker-Smith: While appreciating what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the Regulations, may I ask whether he will review this matter in the light of these circumstances—first, the excellent record of food production on this farm; second, the fact that the stockman is partially crippled; third, that the farm of Mr. Sapsed, Snr., is too far away to enable him to run it; and fourth, the threatened loss of food production if this deferment is not granted?

Sir W. Monckton: These sorts of difficulties are apt to arise in all these cases, and some hardship is certainly involved. If there are facts that have not been brought to the attention of the relevant tribunals, I should be glad to see them.

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that Mr. P. J. Gardiner, of Queen's College, Oxford, served for two years as a miner at Hucknall Colliery, he may be exempted from liability to military service.

Sir W. Monckton: The arrangements under which young men liable for National Service in the Armed Forces could undertake an equivalent period of work in the coalmines instead were withdrawn early in 1947 before Mr. Gardiner went into the mines. He left the mines nearly three years ago, and would ordinarily be due for call-up at the end of the period of deferment he has been granted


for educational purposes. I am, however, satisfied that he went into the mines, after consulting my Department, under a genuine misunderstanding, and I have therefore decided, exceptionally, not to call him up.

Mr. Walker-Smith: May I express to my right hon. and learned Friend my appreciation that in this case he has shown that he knows when to break the Regulations?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Disabled Men, Brighton

Mr. H. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour when his Department will be building in Brighton a Remploy factory to provide sheltered employment for the severely disabled.

Sir W. Monckton: I cannot at present say when Remploy Ltd. is likely to be in a position to build a factory at Brighton.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware of the terrible psychological effect on these severely disabled men of years of enforced unemployment, some of whom are getting to the stage where they regard themselves as unemployable, and will he do everything he can with the Treasury and his own Department to ensure that a Remploy factory is built in Brighton at the earliest possible date?

Sir W. Monckton: The hope to build a Remploy factory in Brighton is based on the fact that it is high in the list, but I should be less than frank if I did not say that one of the difficulties about Remploy Ltd. is that it appeared to my predecessors, as it appears to me, that they have gone rather fast in the number of factories built, and they have to consolidate the position before they can build any more.

Night Baking (Report)

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Labour if he has now had time to study the Report issued last year on Night Baking; and what action he proposes to take.

Sir W. Monckton: I have personally studied the Report of the Rees Committee on Night Baking, and I hope to make an announcement on the subject shortly.

Industry (Equal Pay)

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Labour whether, following the decision of this House on the subject of equal pay in the Civil Service and localauthority service, he will now promote discussion by the National Joint Advisory Council with a view to early application of the principle in industry generally.

Sir W. Monckton: As the hon. Member knows the responsibility for determining wages and conditions of employment in industry, including the application of the principle of equal pay, rests with the negotiating bodies in each industry. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for me to arrange for a discussion by the National Joint Advisory Council.

Mr. Boardman: In view of the need to match any increase in administrative costs with an increase in production, will the Minister give every encouragement to those employed in productive industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I hope to give encouragement to all employed in such industries, but I cannot answer the Question put to me otherwise than in the way I have.

Mr. Boardman: If the Minister is not prepared to take the initiative in this, then he is only letting the cart go before the horse, which will certainly be dangerous.

Sir W. Monckton: I have so far learned that the horse, consisting of the employers and trade unions, has led the cart on better than I can push it.

Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed in Cardiff at the most convenient recent date.

Sir W. Monckton: Two thousand, four hundred and twenty-two at 12th May.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt in Cardiff at the danger that several hundred furniture trade employees will be added to this list, and say whether he is taking action now to deal with that danger which has been brought to his notice?

Sir W. Monckton: I have in mind very much the question of the furniture employees there, but the situation has not


deteriorated very much from the figures I have given. I think the figure on 21st May, 1951, was also over 2,000.

Young People (Training)

Mr. M. MacPherson: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the national importance of increasing the supply of highly skilled craftsmen and highly qualified technicians, he will consider publishing annually, in co-operation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Education, a fuller and more comprehensive report on the practical and theoretical training of young people in their early years in industry than is at present available.

Sir W. Monckton: To produce a comprehensive report on this subject it would be necessary to make a detailed enquiry throughout industry, and in present circumstances I do not think I should be justified in undertaking an inquiry on this extensive scale. I agree that the subject is of great importance, and it may be possible to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member at some future date.

Mr. MacPherson: I am grateful for the the last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer. Will he bear in mind that this is one of the parts of our general manpower problem about which we know very little, comparatively speaking, and that it is really extremely important? Will he also bear in mind that a considerable number of interesting and useful experiments are being made at the instance of enlightened firms, which it would be all to the good to have widely discussed throughout the country?

Sir W. Monckton: It was precisely those facts, and others like them, which made me sympathetic to the suggestion of the hon. Member, but he will find that it would not be my Department only but employers and trade unions also who would have to do the work.

Road Haulage Workers (Stoppages)

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the 36 stoppages in 1951 among workers transporting goods by road, were among workers employed by the Road Haulage Executive; and what were the causes.

Sir W. Monckton: Workers employed by the Road Haulage Executive were involved in 35 of the 36 stoppages of work in 1951 caused by industrial disputes in undertakings engaged in the road transport of goods. Eight of these stoppages arose out of disputes on matters concerning wages, two on questions concerning hours of work, 10 on questions concerning the employment of particular classes of workers or particular individuals, and 12 on other matters concerned with working arrangements. The remaining three stoppages were in support of workers involved in other disputes.

Major Lloyd: Would I be right in assuming from that answer that the employees of the Road Haulage Executive have not been quite as contented as has been represented by Socialist propaganda of the last few weeks?

Unfilled Vacancies

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour what were the number of vacancies notified to employment exchanges and remaining unfilled for every 100 persons registered as unemployed in Great Britain at March in each of the following years: 1946, 1947, 1948, 1951 and 1952.

Sir W. Monckton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 24th April.

Building Trade Apprentices

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to overcome the shortage of apprentices in the building trades.

Sir W. Monckton: Information about the careers offered by the building trades is made generally available to suitable boys in the course of vocational guidance given through the Youth Employment Service, and vacancies notified to the Service for apprentices in these trades are brought to the notice of all such boys who are likely to be interested in them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that a critical situation is now developing in this matter, that only about 25 per cent. of the required number of apprentices are coming into the building industry, and that in London alone we


need 4,000 apprentices a year? This is causing great anxiety both to the employers and to the trade unions concerned.

Sir W. Monckton: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works that an intake of 22,000 apprentices a year is necessary, that the current intake is only about 18,500, and that the matter has been referred to the National Joint Council, which is concerned with it.

Appointments Boards

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Labour how it is proposed to carry on the work done by appointments boards in areas in which the boards offices are to be closed.

Sir W. Monckton: Applicants are being advised to register with one of the three remaining appointments offices at London, Manchester and Glasgow, and vacancies notified by employers will be transferred to the appropriate remaining appointments office.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the great importance of making the best use of our trained brain power, is the Minister satisfied that with only three offices open facilities are adequate to continue the very valuable work which has been done in this matter?

Sir W. Monckton: In addition to keeping these offices open, we attempt to deal with professional and executive applicants in another way, too. Advice interviews and the placing of trainee executives on a more local basis will be carried out at employment centres such as Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham, and we hope that that will be sufficient to maintain the value of the service.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not possible for these people to make use of the local employment exchanges in the first place?

Sir W. Monckton: It is the local employment exchanges to which I was referring and which will give these advice interviews.

EMIGRATION

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the rising unemployment in the United Kingdom, he

will take steps to facilitate emigration of suitable people to the Commonwealth; and to stop all further immigration of foreign workers into this country.

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think that any special steps are necessary. Facilities exist for emigration to the Commonwealth, towards which Her Majesty's Government contributes.
As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his similar Question on 18th March.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that we grow only about half the food needed to feed our people, and that we are going to find it more difficult to buy food abroad, would the Minister not agree that everything possible should be taken to encourage men to go to the Commonwealth who so desire?

Sir W. Monckton: So far as my Department is concerned, quite apart from the contribution towards assisted passages to Australia, we offer our services to those members of the Commonwealth who want such labour by recruitment publicity.

Mr. M. Stewart: Are we to understand from those answers that there are still people so misguided that they wish to leave this country even with the present Government in power?

Sir W. Monckton: Hard though it may be to believe it, it is pleasant to recollect that a great many people want to move about in the family of nations to which we belong.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the importance of this matter, will my right hon. and learned Friend impress upon his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary the importance of setting up again the Overseas Settlement Board which was in operation up to 1938, and, when he does set it up, see that it is composed of people who will deal with planned migration?

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that if this Government is much longer in power we shall have the same forced emigration as we bad between the wars, and that those who will emigrate will certainly not be the friends of the hon. Member who put down the Question?

FOREIGN MINERS (RECRUITMENT COSTS)

Sir Edward Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that the cost of bringing miners from abroad and any other expenses caused by the operations of the National Coal Board will, in future, be debited to the Board and not, like the cost of bringing miners from Italy, paid by the taxpayer.

Sir W. Monckton: There is no present intention of bringing more miners from abroad at Government expense. I am not in a position to enter into commitments about the cost of any such recruitment which may take place in the future.

Sir E. Keeling: But has not the commitment already been entered into by the previous Government at the time of nationalisation, when we were all assured—before my right hon. and learned Friend was a Member of the House—that no part of the cost of winning coal would be defrayed by the taxpayer? Why is the present Government not sticking to that?

Sir W. Monckton: The Question asked about our intentions for the future. I have said I cannot commit myself as to the future. For the present I am saying that there is no intention of recruiting further.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

S.W. Metropolitan Board (Patients' Feeding)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if the detailed investigation has yet been completed in respect of the proposal of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Board to spend 21s. a week on feeding each patient and a maximum of 14s. a week on each mental patient, and with what result.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): Progress has been made in the collection of the necessary information, but the assessment of results will take some time yet.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Minister not appreciate that the proposal was made in February and that his predecessor said during the first week in March that he was looking into it? How long is it to

take? Is he not aware that the catering officer said that 21s. would not allow them to supply anything more substantial than fish cakes? In view of the increased cost of living can the Minister say when a decision is to be made? These people may be mentally sick, but there is nothing wrong with their appetites.

Mr. Macleod: As I am sure the hon. Member knows, comparative costing, which has been a very neglected part of the Health Service, takes a very long time to be efficient. The preliminary information will be available within a few days, but the assessment does take some time.
In reply to the second part of the Question, hospital management committees have been informed by the Board that in certain circumstances if they happen to exceed their estimates this will be allowed.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister not agree that it is wrong for regional boards to attempt to impose maximum costs of this kind, which should be left to the decision of the hospital management committees who know the position of the local hospitals much more intimately?

Mr. Macleod: This is not by any means wholly a measure of economy. Where it is found that a hospital's feeding is below standard the board is taking steps to raise it

Radiological Service, York

Mr. Hylton-Foster: asked the Minister of Health to what extent facilities are available in York for giving deep X-ray treatment, or how soon it is hoped that they will be made available.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There are, at present, no facilities for this treatment in York, but it is the policy of the Leeds Regional Hospital Board to develop a full radiological service there. The equipment has already been procured and the Board are shortly to decide when they will be able to install and operate it.

Mr. Hylton-Foster: Will my right hon Friend remember that this kind of treatment can be very punishing to the patient and that it is dreadful for the patient to have to travel 20 miles or more after treatment?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. The equipment has become available rather sooner than was expected, and the committee dealing with this matter is meeting on 19th June.

Nomenclature

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to alter the name of the Royal Cancer Hospital and of any other hospitals under his control, whose names have an alarming effect upon the patients.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am prepared to consider any proposal for a change of name put forward by the board of governors of this or any other teaching hospital. Regional hospital boards may, in consultation with the management committees concerned, make such changes in the names of non-teaching hospitals as they think fit.

Mr. Paget: Could the Minster go a little bit further and make a suggestion to the board of the Royal Cancer Hospital that such a change might be desirable?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, and no. The initiative rests, so far as teaching hospitals are concerned, very properly with them, but it is true that the board of governors are considering this matter at the moment and it is probable that a formal approach will be made to my Department.

Aged Persons' Accommodation, Liverpool

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Health whether any decision has yet been taken regarding the opening of the Park Hospital, Newsham Park, Liverpool; and when it is intended to proceed to make available this accommodation for aged and chronic sick, so badly needed in Liverpool.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Plans for this hospital have been approved, and tenders are awaited. It is not yet possible to indicate a date at which the accommodation will become available.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that the starting date of 1st January, 1953, is far too distant and that we were without this accommodation in Liverpool all last winter, when it was most necessary? Judging from the date which has been given by his Department we

shall be without the accommodation in the coming winter. Will he have another look at the matter and to see whether an earlier date can be agreed?

Mr. Macleod: I shall be glad to look at it again, but my information is rather different. A starting date cannot be agreed until tenders have been received and Treasury approval obtained.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at it again, because my information is as I have stated?

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, although a considerable quantity of the steel required for the aged persons hostel at Beechley, Harthill Road, Liverpool, has been delivered to provide adequate central heating, an authorisation for three tons of steel to complete the work has been refused by his regional office in Manchester, and that the radiators are therefore useless; and if he will have the matter considered immediately, in view of the fact that approval to proceed with this much needed place was given on 16th April, 1951.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that the steel available for schemes for providing accommodation under the National Assistance Acts is insufficient to enable me to authorise the acquisition of any for this hostel at present.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister look at this matter again? Is he aware that the position is that the first part of this scheme was sanctioned in April, 1951, and that the radiators and boilers and part of the works are already in; that three tons of steel is needed to link them up so that heat can be provided; that on 29th March Manchester refused the allocation of steel but in May of this year the second part of the scheme was sanctioned to be proceeded with and that it is no use proceeding unless heating arrangements are there? It is silly and requires investigation.

Mr. Macleod: In these local matters I have to rely on the advice of the local region and I am informed that Beechley itself has been brought in partial use. I am also informed that, although this is an immensely desirable project, the limitation of steel is such that there are, in fact, others with a slightly higher priority.

Mrs. Braddock: It is such a waste of money.

Mental Patients' Accommodation, N.E. Region

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to remedy the shortage of accommodation for mental defectives in the North-East Metropolitan Hospital Region.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Two villas are being erected at South Ockendon Hospital and two properties have been purchased for adaptation. When completed, these schemes will provide 127 additional beds.

Mr. Braine: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that good news, which will do something to mitigate this very distressing situation? Is he aware, however, that the position has deteriorated since the beginning of the year? Can he say when the additional accommodation may become available?

Mr. Macleod: I regard this problem as one of the most tragic and difficult in the entire National Health Service and, of course, it is not a local one in any way. So far as the immediate question is concerned, I am told that these villas are 25 per cent. complete and I will let my hon. Friend know when they are completed.

Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some consideration to the proposals submitted to the Central Health Services Council by the Institute of Social Psychiatry—proposals designed to relieve this very tragic congestion which occurs in all regions?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, my predecessor has started a fairly full inquiry into the whole matter in the whole of the country and replies to our questionnaire are coming in now from regional hospital boards.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Prescribing

Dr. Brought: asked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation to make it compulsory for pharmaceutical firms to state the price of their products when advertising drugs and medicines to medical practitioners.

Mr. Iain Macleod: While I agree that it is most desirable that doctors in the National Health Service should know these prices, I am not yet clear that the imposing of a requirement to state them in advertisements is a suitable subject for legislation, but I should like to think further about the matter.

Dr. Broughton: Is the Minister aware that the medical profession is being inundated with literature from drug manufacturers advertising proprietary preparations, and that colourful, enticing advertisements, such as these which I have in my hand, tell the doctor all about the preparations except the price? Doctors are being persuaded to prescribe drugs without knowing the cost that will fall upon the National Health Service.

Mr. Macleod: As I think I indicated, I am not in the least unsympathetic to the idea behind the Question, but I was asked about legislation. As my answer shows, we have been looking into that, but there are certain technical difficulties in the matter.

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health what restrictions are placed by his regulations upon medical practitioners in the matter of prescribing drugs and medicines for their patients.

Mr. Iain Macleod: None; but if the cost of a doctor's prescribing is found to be more than was reasonably necessary an appropriate sum of money may be withheld from his remuneration.

Dr. Broughton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will instruct executive committees to compare the average cost of each doctor's prescriptions with the average cost over the country as a whole, and that this matter will be watched at least as carefully as it was under the National Health Insurance Scheme?

Mr. Macleod: I was this morning looking at my pricing investigation unit in the Ministry of Health, but the hon. Member, who is himself a doctor, knows that the great difficulty is that pricing itself is 10 months in arrears. We are trying to get on as fast as we can with the idea that the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Health whether to avoid unnecessary


expenditure, he will advise medical practitioners in the National Health Service, when prescribing proprietary drugs or medicines, to add the letters N.F.E., so that the pharmacist can supply the equivalent according to the National Formulary.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. I think that responsibility for specifying the exact substance to be supplied should rest with the prescriber.

Mr. Marquand: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the last Report of the General Medical Services Committee in which they say that this suggestion—which, of course, is not my own—was turned down because there were seriously legal objections to carrying it out? Apparently, the Committee thought it a desirable suggestion which would lead to economy. If there are legal obstacles could not the right hon. Gentleman remove them by legislation?

Mr. Macleod: The proposal has come up many times and I have no doubt that it came up when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister, but the proposal has not come from the B.M.A. or the chemists themselves and the chemists feel it is putting a responsibility on their shoulders which should not properly be theirs. I understand that there are legal difficulties. I do not know the precise details, but I understand that the law of copyright enters into the question of substituting one preparation for another.

Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government, who are so keen on monetary deterrents so far as patients are concerned, are not prepared to take this step, so that medical practitioners shall prescribe goods which are cheaper but equally good for patients?

Mr. Macleod: As I have explained, in my view and in the view of the two professions most intimately concerned, it is a burden which should not properly be placed on the shoulders of the pharmacists.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Attorney-General about this matter, because I do not understand the legal implications and his reference to copyright?

Mr. Macleod: As I understand, the legal implications are the substituting of a preparation for a previously named preparation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Could not the problem be solved if the doctors themselves, instead of prescribing the proprietary article either with or without these additional letters, prescribed instead the National Formulary equivalent without the patent medicine?

Mr. Macleod: There is a very great deal in that, and I should be delighted to pursue any avenue which will lead to that sort of economy.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not be undesirable that there should be confusion between the general practitioner and the pharmacist as to who, in fact, should prescribe the National Formulary? That might result in greater expenditure than now.

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir.

Prescription Charges

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Health what estimate he has made of the total cost to the taxpayers of removing all charges for drugs, medicines, appliances, dentures, dental treatment and spectacles.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The estimated savings in a full year from the charges authorised by the National Health Service Acts of 1949, 1951 and 1952 are £12 million. £25 million and £7 million, respectively, making a total of £44 million.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason I put down this Question was to draw attention to the irresponsible statement which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) made on the Third Reading of the National Health Service Bill, when he said that now that his party were out of office they had abandoned the ceiling which they themselves fixed?

Mr. Macleod: That question does not appear to be addressed to me but to the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend who preceded him as Minister, during the latter stages of the debates


which we had on the subject, gave the impression that, for his part, he disliked the charges very much and wished he could get rid of them, whereas the present Minister gave the impression that he liked them very much and wanted to retain them in perpetuity? May we now be told what is the Government's present policy?

Mr. Macleod: That has remarkably little to do with the Question which was put down. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be interested to calculate that of the £44 million given in the answer, £37 million were implemented under Socialist Acts and £7 million under Conservative Acts.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Having regard to the terms in which the first supplementary question was asked, Sir, indicating that it was asked for an ulterior purpose and not for the purpose of gaining information, is the questioner not guilty of a breach of the rules of the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is impossible for me to know the motive which lies behind hon. Members putting down Questions when they appear on the Order Paper. Questions should be confined to seeking information, and not for purposes of debate. It would save the time of the House a great deal if that rule were more generally observed by hon. Members.

Major Beamish: May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I put down this Question because I thought that the figure which would be given would be of great interest to the House and the country?

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not a breach of the rules of the House for an hon. Member to put a Question to a Minister for the alleged purpose of launching an attack on another Member?

Mr. Speaker: It is very unusual, but I have noticed hon. Members on both sides of the House very frequently ask Questions and follow them up with supplementaries which are rather in the nature of debate than seeking further elucidation.

Mr. Stokes: Surely it is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that it is the tradition of the House that the purpose of putting down a Question is to ask a supplementary which is not allowed by the Table?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot give any countenance to that interpretation of the rules relating to Questions. I would say again to hon. Members that supplementary questions are bound by the same rules of order as the Questions on the Order Paper. Of course, the Chair is at a great disadvantage because it does not know what the supplementary question is until it is uttered. For the prompt transaction of this part of our business I have to rely on the good sense of hon. Members.

Sir T. Moore: Was not the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) the greatest culprit in that respect when he was a back bencher?

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Health what action he has advised hospitals to take in the case of outpatients who are in urgent need of medicine prescribed for them, are required to pay the prescription fee, and have no money with them for this purpose.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am content to rely on the discretion of hospital authorities in this rare combination of circumstances.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that hospitals are already faced with this problem, that some hospital boards are at a loss for a solution and that they will expect something more constructive from the right hon. Gentleman than that reply?

Mr. Macleod: I am reasonably up to date in this and I have been round the hospitals since the appointed day. I have not found these difficulties and I am quite content to rely on the discretion of the hospitals in this matter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many cases are already arising—some have arisen in my constituency—in which it is important that some exemption should be given to categories of cases, but that this quite absurd waste of time and difficulty is now taking place?

Mr. Bevan: Does the Minister mean by his reply that the hospitals have discretion to waive this charge?

Mr. Macleod: The hospitals will do everything they can to carry out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am answering —the law. I am quite content to rely on their discretion—[HON. MEMBERS:


"They have no discretion"]—if the sort of circumstances mentioned arise in which an out-patient urgently needs medicine and has not the 1s. or has not time to go to the Assistance Board for it.

Mr. Bevan: This is a rather serious matter and I think all hon. Members would like to know what the situation is. Is it a fact, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to have indicated, that the hospital authorities have the right, where they consider there is emergency sickness, to waive the 1s. charge?

Mr. Macleod: It is not a question of waiving the 1s. charge. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is an Act of Parliament and it is expected that the Act will be carried out. But it is quite possible to envisage circumstances, not only at the out-patients' department, but at the chemist's as well, in which someone would be in difficulty, just as he or she might be in difficulty at the dentists and, as I have said, I am prepared to rely on the discretion of the hospital.

Mr. Bevan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is now confusing every one. Will not he reply so that we can be clear about it? Is it merely that the hospital authorities will assist patients to obtain finance from the National Assistance officer or will they have the power to waive the charge itself?

Mr. Macleod: If that sort of circumstance arises, if the hospital deems it necessary that the person who has not 1s. ought to have this treatment or ought to have the medicine necessary, then, I have said, and I say it again, I am quite prepared, in those special circumstances, for the hospital to use its own discretion as to whether he should be asked to get the 1s. or whether he will be supplied with the medicine. Nothing can be clearer than that.

Mr. M. Stewart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Appliances, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in Cardiff who have received a free pair of surgical shoes under the National Health

Scheme during 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951, respectively.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The numbers for the respective years were 100, 360, 554 and 491.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in Cardiff who have received a free issue of a spinal support, an abdominal belt or elastic stockings, respectively, during each of the years 1950 and 1951.

Mr. Iain Macleod: In 1950 and 1951 respectively, 228 and 166 received spinal supports, 782 and 649 abdominal belts. I regret that complete statistics for elastic stockings are not available.

Opticians (Registration)

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement regarding the establishment of a general optical council, following the recommendations of the Inter-Depart mental Committee on the Statutory Registration of Opticians.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Report of this Committee is still under consideration.

Hearing Aids, Somerset

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there are over 700 patients in the south Somerset area awaiting delivery of hearing aids; and if he will take steps to improve the supply of these aids in this area.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir; the supply of aids is now adequate at the Bristol centre, which serves this area, and the rate of distribution to patients has recently increased considerably. The regional board and the board of governors are considering together how the position can be further improved.

Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average waiting time for these aids is about three years? Does he not agree that that is excessive?

Mr. Macleod: There has been a very considerable time lag, and of course this part of the country is no exception, but the figures of distribution from Bristol over the last three four-weekly periods were 138, 131 and 171. A year ago they were 72, 76 and 86. That is almost exactly twice as good.

Dental Goods Industry (Practices)

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Health what consultations he has had with representatives of the dental goods industry since 27th March, 1952; and whether he is satisfied that restrictive practices have now been entirely eliminated from this trade.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have since received a copy of the revised rules of the Association of British Dental Traders, effective from 8th May, 1952, which are now under consideration.

Mr. Marquand: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from the Dental Traders Federation Ltd. alleging that restrictive practices still persist, and if not, will he consider any information which I can send him?

Mr. Macleod: I shall be delighted to consider any such information. The information which I have is that at least in certain respects the supply of dental goods has been a great deal better. But we are not yet satisfied that the new rules to which I have referred completely carry out the obligations placed on this association and that is being looked into.

Dentists (Disciplinary Cases)

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Health how many of the cases of disciplinary action taken against dentists related to dentists employed by corporate bodies.

Mr. Iain Macleod: My records give 43 up to 31st May.

Mr. Williams: In how many of the 43 cases has disciplinary action been taken?

Mr. Macleod: Forty-three cases have been investigated. There are, I think, a total of 200 dentists employed by bodies corporate and 67 of those are employed by the Co-operative Dental Association. Only four of the disciplinary cases referred to apply to them.

Mr. Williams: I do not think the Minister has understood the Question I was asking, which was how many disciplinary actions have been taken against dentists generally, not against persons employed by corporate bodies?

Mr. Macleod: I am sorry, I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring only to

corporate bodies. The number of cases against dentists in private practice is 966.

Mr. Williams: In view of that very large number of cases, and the very small number of actions against dentists employed by corporate bodies, is it not clear that dentists practising privately are a good deal more culpable than dentists employed by corporate bodies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the facts speak for themselves. In these circumstances will not the Minister reconsider his ill-starred Dentists Bill, which is designed specifically to operate against corporate bodies and the appointment of dentists, so far as one can see—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is not it the case that corporate bodies in this matter are a good deal more responsible to the public than are private dentists?

Mr. Macleod: It is true that in the relative percentages between the two the point which is made by the hon. Member is perfectly fair. But I do not think it profitable to discuss by Question and answer a Bill which has not yet been given a Second Reading in this House.

National Registration Numbers

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health to what extent central records of National Registration numbers are being maintained; and what is the cost to public funds.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The question of what central records should be maintained of the identification numbers used in the National Health Service is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that the Minister still retains about 50 million index cards bearing the registration numbers of many people who are now dead? Is not the central index, for that reason, becoming more useless from day to day?

Mr. Macleod: The central index, which is at Southport, is still valuable, especially in view of the purge of doctors' lists which was recently carried out. There is under consideration at the moment between my Department and the Treasury what form it will take in the future, and whether it would be an alphabetical index or not.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Could the Minister answer the last part of the Question? What is the cost to public funds of the maintenance of this organisation, which we thought had disappeared?

Mr. Macleod: It is estimated at £150,000 a year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether persons who have no record of their National Registration numbers suffer loss of entitlement to benefits under the National Health Service.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir, but they may have difficulty in getting accepted for treatment. It is very much in people's own interests that they should record the number on their medical cards if it is not already there.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor said in the House that patients may have difficulty in getting treatment under the Service if they do not give their numbers. What are those difficulties? Would the Minister please explain?

Mr. Macleod: The difficulties are, for example, because dental treatment is pivoted, both at the surgery and at the Dental Estimates Board at Eastbourne, on a system which involves requiring the numbers of patients. Treatment should not be held up because of that, but it is essential that some form of numbers should be obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Grammar School Pupils (Leaving Age)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education if she will set up a committee to ascertain the reasons why so large a proportion of grammar school pupils leave before the age of 18 years; and to suggest means of encouraging grammer school pupils to stay longer at school.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I am aware of the importance of this problem and I am at present considering it, but I do not think that the setting up of a special committee would be appropriate.

Mr. Morley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in 1950–51, 1,448 grammar

school children left at the age of 14; 18,428 left at the age of 15 and 41,600 left at the age of 16, and that over 50 per cent. of grammar school children left at the age of 16 or previously? In view of the importance of this problem what suggestions has she to offer, and what does she propose to do to induce grammar school children to stay longer at school?

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman has given me a good many figures, so that I do not need to discuss them with him further. I shall do all I can. I have already said that I am considering it.

Higher Technological Education

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education what her plans are for the development of higher technological education in England and Wales.

Miss Horsbrugh: On the Government's general policy I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall be announcing very shortly my detailed plans for giving improved grants for certain courses in technical colleges in which provision is made for higher technological education.

Mr. Morley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have read that Question and the Chancellor's answer? Can she say why the Government have turned down the recommendation in the White Paper issued by the previous Government that a Royal College of Technology should be set up; can she tell me in what technical colleges financial grants are to be made, and who is to administer those grants? Does she agree that there should be some system of awards to students at technical colleges who reach graduate standard?

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that these supplementaries are very long.

Mr. Morley: Could the right hon. Lady at least say why the Government have abandoned the idea of setting up a college of technology?

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps that question could best be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He and the Government evidently considered that the policy of the late Government was not the best.

Divisional Executives (Cost)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education the total annual cost to her Department in the administration of divisional executives.

Miss Horsbrugh: In the light of returns recently received from nearly all county authorities, their total expenditure on divisional administration in 1951–52 may be put at slightly under £2 million, as compared with about £1,750,000 in 1950–51. Sixty per cent. grant is payable by my Department on expenditure of this kind.

Mr. Johnson: In view of that, is the Minister aware that many conscientious local government officers were much disturbed last July when the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of extravagance in the administration of divisional executives? Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that the policy of the Government is not to abolish or liquidate the divisional executives?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think it would be worth while to discuss policy announced last July. If the hon. Member looks at the Educational Act he will see that local authorities cannot abolish divisional executives, but they can send suggestions to the Minister. I assure him that suggestions would be considered.

School Meals (Cost)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Education by what amount the cost of school meals is expected to increase by reason of the reduction in food subsidies; and what proportion of the additional cost will be imposed upon the parents of school children.

Miss Horsbrugh: I estimate that the additional cost due to the announced rises in the price of bread, flour and meat will be of the order of 0.68d. a meal, amounting to something over £1,500,000 in a full year. I cannot estimate the additional cost arising from the other proposals in the Budget until actual price increases and effective dates have been announced. Nor, for the present, can I say anything about the way in which the additional cost will be met.

Dr. Broughton: May we have a definite assurance from the right hon. Lady that the Government will not increase the cost of school meals?

Miss Horsbrugh: No; I certainly could not give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the first action that I took before discussing a rise in the price to the parents was to ask local authorities to see how much they could cut down the cost of overhead charges.

University Awards. Warwickshire

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware that the relevant figures for Warwickshire of awards to students taking university courses are 8.2 per 10,000; and what action she proposes in this matter to bring the ratio in the case of this local authority nearer to the national average.

Miss Horsbrugh: I shall be issuing a circular within the next few days in which I shall draw attention to the variations which appear to exist in the awards policies of different authorities, and shall invite authorities to review their arrangements having regard to the figures given in my previous Circular 247 and to a number of other factors. I do not, however, accept the implication that this or any other authority's policy is necessarily inadequate simply because the number of awards taken up in a particular year fell short of the national average.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that this is the lowest figure in the country and that this state of affairs is looked upon as a scandal by all but the most parsimonious Tories in the county; and, even more serious than that, that many of the boys and girls will not be able to go to university because of the low number of awards for higher education?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that all the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman will be relieved if he reads the answer I have given.

Catholic School Children, Northampton (Transport)

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Education what steps she proposes to take to assist Catholic children attending St.Mary's Roman Catholic schools in Northampton, whose travelling facilities have been removed as a result of her Circular No. 242.

Miss Horsbrugh: The parents were asked to contribute to the cost of transport where they desired their children to


attend a school other than the nearest. The local education authority are now modifying these new arrangements to avoid the possibility of financial hardship.

Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Lady see that her Circular does not result in religious discrimination, as it is doing today?

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that we have taken every possible step to see that there should be no religious discrimination. It is clear, and it has been stated, that no child should be debarred from attending a school chosen by its parents simply by financial difficulties.

Swimming Instruction

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Education what steps she is taking to ensure that swimming is taught to children in school hours and by persons properly qualified to teach this art, in view of the harm done to children by unqualified teachers of swimming.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am satisfied that in general local education authorities and other school authorities make good use of existing facilities for teaching swimming to school children in school hours. It is for those authorities to decide by whom instruction is given and I have no evidence to suggest that any guidance on this matter is called for from my Department.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that she is not addressing her mind to the Question on the Order Paper? Further, does she realise that in acting as she does in this matter she is ruining the careers of scores of qualified teachers of swimming as well as harming children by implanting in their minds the fear of water?

Miss Horsbrugh: I do not feel that I can be accused of implanting the fear of water in young children, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. The Minister has no power to interfere in the curriculum which is laid down by the local authority.

Mr. Lindgren: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that there are local education authorities, to which I have drawn her attention, which have reduced education estimates by cutting the cost of

swimming instruction? Does she not think that this is extremely unfair to children, all of whom ought to have the opportunity to learn, and that it would be beneficial from the national point of view if they had the opportunity?

Miss Horsbrugh: I should rather leave to the local authorities certain responsibilities which have been given to them to decide the curriculum.

Schoolchildren, Camborne (Transport Grants)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education what action she proposes to take on the decision of the Cornwall Education Committee to withdraw traveling grants from the small number of scholars at St. John's Roman Catholic Voluntary Primary School, Camborne, Cornwall, who live outside the limits for compulsory attendance at that school, the only one of its kind within a radius of 10 miles.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have been in touch with the authority, who have informed me that they have received some appeals from parents against this decision and that they are giving further consideration to it.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that this economy was a direct result of Circular 242? Will she now issue another circular, modifying the terms of the previous one?

Miss Horsbrugh: No. I certainly will not. The authority agree that they have the power to do these things and to modify them as they think best. The authority are perfectly aware of the facts in Circular 242, and they can act accordingly by modifying their scheme.

Educational Services

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Education what improved educational services she has introduced during the past six months; and what improvements she proposes to introduce in the current year.

Miss Horsbrugh: My main concern at the present time is to maintain and develop existing educational services, especially by securing the provision of accommodation and teachers for the growing numbers of children of school age, and such expansion of technical education as the resources available to me allow.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that in the Tory Party's Election manifesto there was a definite promise that there would be an improvement in educational services, but that during the last eight months, since the Tories have been in power, there has been nothing in the way of improvement and that Circular 242 has meant a continual worsening in educational services? Is this another example of the way in which the Tory Government implement their promises?

Miss Horsbrugh: There has been a continual improvement. More schools have been provided, more teachers have been brought into them to teach and more kitchens have been opened for feeding the children.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that one of the most serious defects in the educational service is the large size of classes, and does she agree that she has already indicated to the House that she anticipates that her policy will result in larger classes within the next 12 months?

Miss Horsbrugh: The fact is that all the figures for large classes which I have had to give in the House refer to the size of classes when the last Government gave up office. I have inherited a large number of schools where there is an insufficiency of teachers, and I am now increasing the number of teachers as quickly as possible. But there is a lot to be done.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and of the fact that this is another broken promise, I beg to give notice that I shall take the first opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir, but before announcing the business for next week I should say that we propose to ask the House to complete the Report and Third Reading of the Town Development Bill, and the Committee and remaining stages of the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill [Lords] tonight.
This business was not completed on Tuesday, and we propose to move the suspension of the Rule for the purpose.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH JUNE — Committee stage:
Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill.
Second Reading:
Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Ways and Means and Financial Resolutions.
Further progress will be made with the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Bill [Lords], if not already disposed of.
If there is time, Second Reading of the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) Bill [Lords.]
TUESDAY, 17TH JUNE—Report stage:
Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH JUNE — Report stage:
Finance Bill, which it is hoped to conclude.
THURSDAY, 19TH JUNE—Supply (14th Allotted Day): —Committee.
Debate on the work of the United Nations Organisation and Specialised Agencies.
FRIDAY, 20TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
During the week, we shall ask the House to consider a Motion to approve the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement, copies of which will be made available Tomorrow (Friday).

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentle-may say why it was not possible to inform the House that this extra business would be taken this evening, because the failure to complete that business was on Tuesday evening, and, surely, we should have been told on Wednesday? It is certainly inconvenient to do it at the last moment like this.

Mr. Crookshank: We are only following a practice which was frequently carried out in the last Parliament when a situation of this kind arose, and communications were exchanged through the usual channels on the evening before.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, but there was plenty of time to have done this yesterday. We have had no information about it until now.

Mr. Crookshank: It is on the Order Paper, and anybody who looked at the Order Paper this morning would have had the information.

Mr. Attlee: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the Motion to approve the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement? I understand that the Licence will only be available tomorrow afternoon, and the text of the new Charter not before some time next week. Therefore, we are not in a position at present to know how far the contents of these documents will need full discussion, but, if it should be so, we should certainly want adequate time to discuss an important matter of this kind.

Mr. Crookshank: I quite recognise that, and that is why I put it in the form which I did in my statement. I realise that the House will want to study the documents, but the only one to come before us will be the Licence and Agreement. If it is necessary to have anything more than a short debate on it, we should have to consider it through the usual channels, with a view to a re-arrangement, which I would announce as early as possible.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay caused with Tuesday's business was entirely due to the fact that the Government had nobody on the Front Bench to answer the questions raised on this technical Bill, and that they had no lawyer there to deal with it? May we now take it that, because of this extraordinary action taken for tonight, all pairs for tonight are automatically broken?

Mr. Crookshank: I know nothing about pairs, which, of course, concern an unofficial arrangement which does not come within my purview. I certainly cannot accept the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to put forward as to what happened on Tuesday. There were quite different reasons from those which he gave as the reasons for which we did not get the business, though we expected to get it, because, when I announced this business previously, I also added that we should ask

the House to consider other Bills, which was perfectly feasible.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: It is strictly true that pairs are not part of the Standing Orders of the House, but part of a convention which is centuries old. If, in fact, the Order Paper is changed at the last moment, it is very difficult to alter pairs, because pairs refer to the business on the Order Paper, and not to the changed business. It really is a discourtesy to the House.

Mr. Crookshank: I can only reply that I have nothing to do with pairs. They are a private arrangement, which I know is of great convenience to hon. Members, but it has nothing to do with Standing Orders or with what is said in this Chamber. Pairs are arranged outside. As for the inconvenience, I recognise that it was inconvenient to have to put this business on for tonight, but it was equally inconvenient not to get the business, as we fully expected to do, on Tuesday.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, on this side of the House, pairs are regarded as a matter of personal and individual contract, and does he not think it very strange that a lawyer like the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) should take such an unorthodox view as he has just expressed?

Mr. I. Mikardo: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to give further consideration to the desirability of providing time to debate the new proposals announced by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in respect of civil air transport?

Mr. Crookshank: I know that my right hon. Friend will be very glad to have a debate on this subject, but, as it does not, in fact, involve legislation, it could be taken on a Supply Day.

Mr. F. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that no legislation will be necessary to implement the proposals which his right hon. Friend has in mind?

Mr. Crookshank: That is what I am advised. If I am wrong, I am sorry, but that is the advice I have received.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is expected


to take the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Prohibition of Sale of Small Houses) (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir; I cannot do so yet.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect saying that there had been no complaint about the business announced for one particular day, and that he was therefore assuming that that business would be obtained? May I now make a complaint about next Monday's business?

Mr. Crookshank: I was referring to conversations through the usual channels. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make his complaint to his right hon. Friends opposite.

EUROPEAN PAYMENTS UNION AND BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a short statement about the arrangements for continuing the European Payments Union which were agreed at the meeting on 7th June of the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
The details of these arrangements have already been reported in the Press. The difficulties which confronted the Union arose, firstly, from the inadequacy of the convertible assets to sustain its normal operations, and secondly, from the need to deal with the creditor position of Belgium in the Union. It was, of course, most desirable—and I am sure that the House will agree with this—to avoid a collapse of the Union. Indeed in accepting the election of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the chair, Her Majesty's Government have indicated their abiding interest in Europe's economic problems.
To ease the Union's difficulties it was decided to alter the scale of gold payments by debtor countries so as to increase the proportion of gold payable in the earlier stages of their quotas. The overall proportions of gold and credit in the quota remain unchanged. It was also decided to establish a guarantee fund of 100 million dollars to which all members would contribute in proportion to their

quotas if the level of the Union's convertible assets were to fall at any time below 100 million dollars. These would be temporary loans, repayable as soon as the assets rose again above 100 million dollars.
In the Belgian case, the problem was, first, to arrange for the funding and repayment of the credits outstanding in excess of the Belgian quota, and secondly, to determine the method of settlement of Belgian surpluses for the future. Arrangements have been made to deal with 180 million dollars of the outstanding credits. Part will be paid off at once; part will be funded over five years (and unless Belgium can arrange for the immediate mobilisation of the amount involved the whole settlement will come under review again). Part will be turned into bilateral obligations by the United Kingdom and France towards Belgium and paid off by deliveries of defence items over two years. Our share of this last part will be 25–30 million dollars.
Finally, these arrangements for settling Belgium's outstanding credits were conditional on Belgium agreeing that her surpluses for 1952–53 should be settled up to a total of 250 million dollars on the basis of 50 per cent, credit and 50 per cent. gold. This is a very important point, because it means that Belgian surpluses will be dealt with on the same basis as the surpluses of other creditor countries. This has made it possible for the Union to deal with the outstanding credits without undue strain on its convertible assets.
In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the arrangements agreed by the Council, which must, of course, be taken as a whole, represent a satisfactory settlement. The solvency of the Union has been assured, and the problems arising out of Belgium's creditor position have been resolved with good will and a spirit of compromise on both sides.
I should like to say a word about the impact of these arrangements on the United Kingdom itself. First, the alteration of the gold scales will not affect us immediately, since we have already exhausted our quota and are paying 100 per cent, gold for our deficits. But it does mean that when we move back into surplus we shall recover the gold we have paid inside our quota at a slower rate. On the other hand, if the Union had not


been made solvent, our ability to recover the gold at all would have been impaired. Secondly, we shall have to meet our share of about 27 million dollars, in the Guarantee Fund; this will require legislation. Thirdly, although we assume a bilateral debt to Belgium of 25–30 million dollars, we are given immediate credit in the Union; this means in effect that we are getting payment in gold in advance for defence items to be delivered over two years.
I now turn to some more general aspects of our balance of payments position. It is our fixed purpose to establish our economy on a secure basis, and so we must put the balance of payments first in all our considerations. I now want to state to the House what I said to the Council of O.E.E.C. last week, namely, that from time to time we shall continue to take whatever further measures prove necessary to maintain confidence in sterling and to balance our payments.
In the meantime, there are certain points I wish to mention. I come first to the position of our gold and dollar reserves. It has been the practice to make a statement about the reserves quarterly. This practice will be followed early in July. I am, however, considering whether this is the best procedure. Some people are apt to judge the position which we are in solely in the light of our deficit in the European Payments Union. These European Payments Union deficits are undoubtedly a serious liability, but they have declined in recent months as measures introduced by Her Majesty's Government and other sterling area Governments have begun to take effect. Moreover, these deficits are only one factor in our balance of payments position.
The House may like to know the facts. Since the end of March our gold and dollar reserves have fallen by less than £10 million. This loss of less than £10 million in nearly two and a half months compares with a loss of £334 million in the last three months of 1951 and £227 million in the first three months of 1952. This quarter's figures include the first instalments of the 300 million dollars of Defence Aid from the United States in accordance with the arrangements announced last January.
The second point I want to stress is this. We are holding the position and have had a welcome and definite respite in the loss of our reserves which fully justifies the action which we and the rest of the sterling area have felt obliged to take, but a long and hard task lies before us. It is not a question of getting over a hump. It is much more a question of building up our position steadily over the next two or three years.
There is another factor. We have many external capital commitments and we must provide for building up the reserves from their present level. Unless provision for these can be made out of our current earnings in exactly the same way as imports are paid for, we are not meeting our obligations and the loss must ultimately fall on the reserves. Therefore, it is not sufficient for us just to balance on current account. A surplus must be our aim.
In the third place, our capacity to fulfil these tasks, unless it is done by the less desirable method of cutting down imports and consumption, is to expand production, to make the goods which the world wants at the price it is ready to pay. In particular we must expand our exports to the dollar and non-sterling world. This is a task for all; workers, employers and Government.
Finally, I will repeat what I said in Paris, that our motto must be "Trade, not Aid." A large and expanding share of the world's trade is a condition of the success of the policies at home and abroad to which we are all dedicated, and it is the fixed policy -of the Government to strain every nerve to achieve this end.

Mr. Gaitskell: Before I put questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I say that we welcome the election of the Foreign Secretary to the chair of O.E.E.C.? May I also say that the statement the Chancellor has made is an important one and clearly calls for study and, I would hope, early debate.
First of all, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two points of detail? The first is, when does he anticipate that the legislation he foreshadowed in his statement will be introduced? Will it be before the summer Recess? Secondly, can he tell the House how much United States economic aid has been received this quarter, or, in other words, what the


state of the gold and dollar reserves would be today if no economic aid had been received?
May I now ask him three more general questions? First, as regards Belgium, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that when the Union was formed it was the general understanding that each country would attempt to keep in balance with the rest of the Union, and that when we were in surplus we took special steps to increase our imports from the other countries in the Union? Will he please tell us what steps Belgium is now taking to do the same, and also any other surplus countries?
Secondly, would not he agree that the introduction of additional gold payments by debtors in the early stages is bound to have a depressing effect on European trade because of the fear of additional gold losses which it is bound to introduce into the minds of debtor countries?
Thirdly, as regards the slogan, "Trade, not Aid"—which we would all support —will the right hon. Gentleman please tell us what steps he is taking to discuss with the United States of America and other countries ways of achieving this end?

Mr. Butler: I am very glad to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, but first I should like to thank him for his tribute to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was elected to the chair of O.E.E.C, which I think has significance for our country as a whole and which was decided unanimously by all member States present in O.E.E.C.
Secondly, on the subject of legislation, I cannot forestall any statement to be made by the Leader of the House, but at the earliest possible date the Government will give an answer to the right hon. Member and to the House as a whole. The third question was about the extent of United States aid. I am in a position to say that about one-third of the 300 million dollars has so far come in, which means that the picture I gave of a substantial improvement is not very much altered by that figure. About one-third has so far been received and we sincerely hope the rest will not be too far behind.
The answer to the general question is as follows. I fully understand the right

hon. Gentleman's preoccupation with the responsibility which should fall on the shoulders of individual nations, and I think it is a sign that Belgium realises her responsibility by the fact that she has accepted that her surpluses for 1952–53 should be settled on a basis of half credit and half gold. This will impose considerable necessity upon Belgium so to plan her trading accounts that she is, so to speak, a partner working with us in the common concern of the Union.
There was a point about additional gold payments by debtors. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that several nations were very concerned about this, including Denmark. The answer to that point is that unless members of the club are able to pay up more at this stage and in the immediate future it will be impossible for the Union to remain in balance; and in the long run this is a much wiser policy than letting the Union collapse with all the consequent bad effects on Britain and the debtor States.
On the question of "Trade, not Aid," the mere fact that Her Majesty's Government are now proposing to take a lead in a most important position in O.E.E.C. and that we have already not only our own connection but close friendship and contact with the Commonwealth indicates that in any future approach to the United States of America we shall have with us the influence of all these great areas of the world in which we shall not only be a partner but also a leader; and that is the position our country should be in.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure of £10 million he gave as the run-down in reserves would have been £40 million if 100 million dollars had not come in from the United States? Secondly, is he able to form any estimate whatsoever of what will be the cost of the British troops on the Continent after June next year in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has committed himself blindly to an unknown figure? Will he therefore be able to tell us whether it will be £130 million a year, which is the existing German cost of the British occupying troops, or some similar figure, and if so, what?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the reserves are being


held by the consumption of stocks, because if industrial stocks are being consumed it is in fact equal to eating up reserves of money? Will he, therefore, if he cannot do it today, take an early opportunity of giving a more detailed and candid picture of the economic situation than he has given this afternoon?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman, with great perspicacity, has worked out the sum quite correctly, namely, that one-third of 300 million dollars in aid, added to the sum which I mentioned, works out at a trifle more than he himself indicated. That is why I took the opportunity to indicate that we have received this aid in this period, and I am glad we have received it in aid of our defences.
But that does not get away from the fact that there is a great deal of difference, whether one interprets the sum as £10 million or £47 million in the last quarter, between that and the loss in the first quarter, when this Government came in, of £334 million and the loss which we consequently reduced in the next three months to £227 million. This is evidence that the sacrifice made by the country as a whole, which this Government have had to impose, has some reason behind it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that in interpreting the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the country.
On the second point about the policy with regard to our troops in Germany, I think the right hon. Gentleman takes an unduly simple view of the statesmanship and foresight of the Foreign Secretary. I would prefer to leave the conduct of our foreign affairs, including this very serious point, which the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to mention because it is a thing towards which we should look, to my right hon. Friend with all his qualities of statesmanship and wisdom, aided, I hope, by a severe Chancellor of the Exchequer.
On the question of stocks, I have openly stated in every statement I have made to the House or to the House in Committee that the stock position does feature in the balance of payments measures which we have taken. That is well known. If it had not been that we had had some reliance on stocks, many further sacrifices would have had to have been imposed, and I do not think

that it is a bad thing to state the facts accurately to the House. I am equally convinced that no step has been taken with regard to stocks which would prejudice our national position. That is a responsibility which rests with Her Majesty's Government which I am satisfied has been properly carried out.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the Chancellor, in the interests of the House and the country as a whole, to be a little more candid? We cannot possibly form an estimate of what reserves are at our disposal unless we have the figure of the extent to which stocks are being run down, because those stocks will have to be replenished if our economy is to continue. We have already had three figures, or rather two different figures and a vague estimate. First it was £10 million and now it is £47 million. If one adds the run-down on stocks, it will be a much larger figure. What is it? We should like to know. Furthermore, there will be far greater anxiety about the cost of occupation troops in all parts of the House just now because we have committed ourselves to a policy without in fact knowing the financial cost. If that is not blind bargaining, I do not know what is.

Mr. Butler: I cannot imagine why the right hon. Gentleman should desire to present his country's position in the worst possible light. That is not in the interests either of the country or of himself. Further, the right hon. Gentleman should remember that the Government of which he was for part of the time a member lived for a great period of their office on American aid and squandered it.

Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country will feel that he is much to be congratulated upon checking the loss of gold and dollars and that the country is ready to support him in further efforts in this direction? Is he also aware, or would he agree, that not only is production of great importance, but that the increase of our invisible exports and our commerce are equally important?

Mr. Butler: I had no time to dwell upon them in detail but I agree that our invisibles are of first-class importance, as is production.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question arising out of his statement about the provision of defence


items to Belgium for the next two years? Are these items to come within surplus stocks or within new production? Will any of the items consist of modern weapons and to what extent are we going to deprive ourselves of these weapons? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some details? He said something about the need for increased production. Will the Government tell us what plans they have for increased production?

Mr. Butler: I think it would be inappropriate to go into the latter subject on this occasion. With regard to the defence items, no doubt the details can be brought out in due course, but much depends upon the orders which the Belgians themselves desire to place. I could not say whether they are new production or out of existing stocks. All I know is that there is a great opening here for us to save ourselves gold payments and to indulge in a form of exports which I believe will be in the national interest.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his statement

"Trade, not Aid" is the most sensible thing he has said for a long time, but it is meaningless unless he takes steps to remove all barriers to international trade and make the pound sterling freely convertible as soon as possible? Will the Government have the courage to take whatever steps are necessary, however unpopular, and damn the electoral consequences?

Mr. Speaker: I think we might terminate this discussion upon that note.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Town Development Bill and the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill [Lords]be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 195.

Division No. 158.]
AYES
4.3 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L
Gomme-Duncan, Col A


Alport, C. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Gower, H. R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W J
Colegate, W. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Ashton, H (Cheimsford)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F C
Hare, Hon J. H


Baldock, Lt. -Cmdr J. M
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Banks, Col. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Barber, A P. L.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Barlow, Sir John
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hay, John


Baxter, A. B.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Heath, Edward


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Davidson, Viscountess
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Beamish, Maj Tufton
Deedes, W. F.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, F M. (Reading N.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bevins, J. R (Toxteth)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Birch, Nigel
Doughty, C J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bishop, F P.
Drayson, G. B.
Holland-Martin, C J


Black, C. W.
Drewe, C
Hollis, M. C


Boothby, R. J. G
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Holt, A. F


Bossom, A. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Hope, Lord John


Bowen, E. R.
Eden, Rt. Hon A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G (Bristol, N.W.)
Fell, A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Finlay, Graeme
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fisher, Nigel
Hurd, A. R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clarke (E'b'grh W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Fort, R.
Hyde, Ll.-Col. H. M.


Bullard, D. G.
Foster, John
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H


Bullock, Capt. M
Fraser, Hon Hugh (Stone)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kaberry, D.


Butcher, H. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A (Saffron Walden)
Garner-Evans, E. H
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Cary, Sir Robert
George, Rl. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd
Lambert, Hon. G.


Channon, H
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Godber, J. B
Langford-Holt, J A




Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Linstead, H. N.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Studholme, H. G.


Low, A. R. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Peyton, J.. W. W
Teeling, W.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


McKibbin, A. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Profumo, J. D.
Tilney, John


Maclean, Fitzroy
Raikes, H. V.
Turner, H. F. L


MacLeod, Rt. Hon Iain (Enfield, W)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turton, R. H.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Renton, D. L. M
Vane, W. M. F.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horneastle)
Robertson, Sir David
Vesper, D. F.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Robson-Brown, W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Medliott, Brig. F.
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Mellor, Sir John
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Watkinson, H. A


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Wellwood, W.


Nabarro, G. D. N
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nichols, Harmar
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wills, G.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Snadden, W. MoN.



Nutting, Anthony
Spearman, A. C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.
Major Conant and


Odey, G. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hoy, J. H


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hubbard, T. F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Balfour, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bartley, P.
Donnelly, D. L.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Bence, C. R
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Benson, G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Beswick, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. W (Merioneth)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Keenan, W.


Blackburn, F.
Ewart, R.
Kenyon, C


Blenkinsop, A
Fienburgh, W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.


Boardman, H.
Follick, M.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G.
Foot, M. M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowden, H. W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur


Bowles, F. G.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lindrgen, G. C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N
Logan, D. G.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gibson, C. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Glanville, James
McGovern, J


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
McInnes, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McLeavy, F.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Grey, C. F.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Callaghan, L. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Carmichael, J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Castle, Mrs B. A
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon H A


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mayhew, C. P.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.


Clunie, J.
Hardy, E. A.
Mikardo, Ian


Cooks, F. S.
Hargreaves, A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Coldrick, W.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Monslow, W


Cellick, P. H.
Hay man, F. H.
Moody, A. S.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morley, R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Herbison, Miss M
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Daines, P.
Holman, P
Moyle, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Murray, J. D.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J







Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Pannell, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Paton, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Peart, T. F.
Slater, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Snow, J. W.
West, D. G.


Popplewell, E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Proctor, W. T,
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, George


Pryde, D. J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R
Wilkins, W. A.


Rankin, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rhodes, H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Richards, R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Ross, William
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, V. F.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)



Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomeycroft, Harry (Clayton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Short, E. W.
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Royle and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Agriculture for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

Civil Estimates, 1952–53



£


Class VI., Vote 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
10


Class VI., Vote 9, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)
10


Total
20

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

Mr. Baker White: On a point of order. Might I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to the procedure we are to adopt? We are about to debate the vital question of the home production of food during the next four years. I understand that this debate is to be interrupted at 7 o'clock for a Private Bill and, because it is Supply Day, it is not possible to add on the lost time when that Private Bill is disposed of. I should like to ask whether it is permissible, within the Standing Orders, to take the Private Bill at 9 o'clock instead of 7 o'clock. If that were done, I think there would be greater continuity of debate on a matter which I think both sides of the Committee regard as a vital one.

The Chairman: Under Standing Order No. 7, paragraph 4, it is quite clear that 7 o'clock is the time at which the Chairman of Ways arid Means must put down a Private Bill. I am afraid there is nothing that can be done in the matter.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Some five or six weeks ago there was a debate in another place on food production. I found it very agreeable to notice that there was a unanimous acceptance

of the 1947 Act as the only possible basis for a long-term agricultural policy. There may be a need for some slight amendment here or there to enable county executive and district committees to play their part more effectively, or to catch up with some inefficient farmer or restrain an overbearing landlord. But after five years the general principles of the 1947 Act are accepted in another place, as I think they are, broadly, by us. I think I can say in all modesty that that is very comforting to those sitting on the benches on this side of the Committee.
The Minister, when addressing the Council of the National Farmers' Union and county leaders, rather went one better when he said that the 1947 Act gave the industry an enormous measure of self-government, and that it was based in principle on a unique partnership between the agricultural community and the Government. The Minister went on to say that this was something which was not matched, as far as he knew, in any other industry or in any other country. It was a precious possession that he was certain the N.F.U. appreciated. It was an asset too precious to risk. It had got to be looked after both by the Government and by the industry with all the energy and will at their command. I thought that that testimony to the 1947 Act was so good that it ought to be in the records of the House. Better still, I should like to commend it to every farmer in the country. There ought to be a copy of it in every farm-house.
But the noble Lords were equally unanimous on the need for the maximum production of food, improved efficiency and fuller co-operation from the industry than we have had during the last 18 months. I do not think we can afford to be less enthusiastic than noble Lords. Unless we do produce more food from our soil somebody is certainly going to get less. I shall return to that theme later.
We now have before us the White Paper on the review of prices and future production policy. Having been associated with several Price Reviews, I readily appreciate—perhaps as few other hon. Members can—the difficulty of making readily intelligible the mass of figures embodied in the White Paper, but if hon Members who have the White Paper


before them will look at paragraphs 17 to 20 I think they will see—it seems clear enough to me, at all events—that the total increase in farmers' costs, including wages, between February, 1951, and February, 1952, was some £57 million. This was made up of the items referred to in Appendix III, plus £16 million for wages; and recoupment is £39 million, plus £16 million, less £2½ million, making a net recoupment of £52½ million.
I understand this figure to represent full recoupment on all review commodities except wool. I am prepared to say that, faced with a recession in production and the need for an intensive drive for greater production, full recoupment was probably justified. But if society is to continue to spend very large sums of money on science, research and education, society is entitled, at some stage at least, to share in the benefit of increased efficiency. Whether the figure for this year will increase or decrease the net income of the farmers depends upon several factors, including the volume of production, improved efficiency and the weather.
Of the £39 million mentioned in paragraph 19, something like 37 per cent. or 38 per cent, is to be provided by subsidies on fertilisers, ploughing grants and calf rearing, and the remainder by increased prices. There may be legitimate difterences of opinion as to the wisdom of this sort of policy, but if we are to restore and extend the tillage acreage, produce the meat we require and improve the yields of tillage crops there is a good deal to be said in favour of this policy. I would say to the Minister, however: "Please do not carry this policy too far, or at some future date it may attract the attention of a hard-driven Chancellor of the Exchequer." In saying that I speak with some little experience.
The second important thing to notice —and I raise this only for the sake of clarity—is the price of feedingstuffs, as shown in paragraph 16. Doubts have been expressed whether this is another subsidy, in addition to the £39 million already referred to. As I see it, however, the stabilising of the price will make no difference at all to the farmers in general. It may help the smaller farmer, where he can produce little of his own feeding-stuffs. If feedingstuff prices had been increased by a further £24 million, it is obvious that £24 million would have had

to be added to the recoupment also. It would have left the situation very much as it was. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to make that point transparently clear, although I think the footnote to page 6 is clear enough in itself.
On the general question of the Price Review, I must confess that it is no easy task, but no acceptable alternative has yet been discovered. When dealing with 360,000 or 370,000 farms of every gradation of size, layout, area, position, rainfall, etc., it is obvious that a uniform price cannot produce uniform results farm by farm. If prices are too high for certain farmers then these farmers get more than enough, but we can all rely on the tax gatherer doing his duty efficiently there.
It is nonsense to say, as has been said here and there, that once a person reaches the Income Tax range his production automatically slows down. If that were the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come off very badly indeed. Since his estimate of the product from Income Tax this year is no less than £1,800 million, we can say that someone continues to produce even after reaching the Income Tax level. An important point to remember is that if prices are fixed too low, production can go down very rapidly indeed. Once that happens, recovery is not easy.
On the question of future production policy, there can be no two opinions about the need for maximum production, for, as the Minister of Food has found since he took office, the days of cheap, abundant supplies from overseas seem to have gone for a very long time. I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew very much about it during the last Election. The world has been changing very rapidly. Perhaps Argentina is the best example. There, some 50 years ago, no fewer than two-thirds of the population were engaged on the land. Today the number is less than one-third. Industrialisation has been going on at a fairly rapid rate. Men are leaving the land and consuming more, and because they have greater spending power and are producing less, there is less available for export.
Australia is in pretty much the same position as Argentina. I believe that the time is not too far distant—a few short years—when Australia, because of indus-


trialisation and the slow development of the countryside, may be competing with us as buyers of food on the world market. Then, of course, there are India, Pakistan, Burma, and other countries where it is a question of more and better food or Communism, which none of the countries would desire. It is an indication of the new situation that India, 20 years ago the second largest exporter of wheat, now must import some eight million tons of grain annually to stave off famine.
Neither does world population stand still. It is very awkward to realise that when those born today become 21 years of age there will be another 500 million mouths to feed. I do not think that in the history of the world food production has ever increased at that rate. There is not only a full-time job for the Lord President's commercial travellers that we heard so much about in the course of the Election, but there is a very real job for our own farmers, too.
We were all extremely anxious to see what the Government's future production policy was. I cannot say that I am seriously disappointed, because I did not expect too much. Even paragraph 12 tells us that the objective for the next four years is a moderate one. Of course, there is little or nothing very new in it. We had been running grass-development campaigns ever since 1947. I have been myself appealing on scores of platforms for many years for an increase in sheep, on lowland as well as on upland farms. More important still, the Labour Government did extend the Hill Farming Act and passed the Livestock Rearing Act with a view to getting more home-produced meat.
We can thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for holding so tightly to the sound policy of the Labour Government which preceded the present Tory Government, but even the National Farmers' Union, commenting on these new proposals, said:
Far from setting British agriculture an impossible task, the programme understated the industry's capacity to contribute effectively towards remedying the country's economic difficulties.
They are very brave words indeed. Capacity is one thing; achievement is quite another. Certainly the National Farmers'

Union's expression is hardly consistent with what has happened in the countryside over these past two years. Members of the National Farmers' Union have constantly repeated what I regard almost as a fable, that the downward trend of production was due to under-recoupment in 1951. Well, let us just have a look to see whether that is so or not.
The loss of tillage acreage and the reduced number of calves are referred to in paragraph 7 of the White Paper. It is suggested in paragraph 6 that the cause is partly uncertainty about the demand for farmers' products. I find it difficult to agree on this point either with the National Farmers' Union or with the suggestion in paragraph 6. There never has for the past nine or 10 years been any uncertainty about the need for more meat in this country.
For example, the net income for 1951–52 is estimated to be £30 million more than in 1950–51, which was a very bad year and was much less than 1949–50, when we had a very good year. On the other hand—and this is important—there were only two commodities mentioned at all on the 1951 price-review problem. They were milk and eggs. They hardly account for the drop of 300,000 calves being carried for beef or the loss of one million acres of tillage.
I believe that the capacity referred to by the National Farmers' Union is there, but now we are anxious about achievement out of that capacity. To be fair to the N.F.U., and indeed to ourselves and everybody else, it is true to say that there was a shortage of capital owing to a shocking harvest in 1950 and a drop in milk yield owing to excessively wet weather early in 1951. Perhaps also the advance minimum prices were, on the whole, unrealistic.
The plain fact is that we failed to use our power under Section 98 to maintain the tillage acreage. Apparently we and the county committees were too lenient, but the repeated Tory promises about the imported feedingstuffs that they were going to bring in when given power did not help us to maintain our tillage acreage. The Minister of Agriculture has been very frank to admit his indiscretion. I am also prepared to be very frank, and I accept my share of the responsibility.
I am glad to see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman states in paragraph 9 that the Government will not only encourage but
where necessary require that full productive use is made of the land.
I entirely agree with that sentiment, and I do not think that there is any disagreement about it in any part of the House, but perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to explain a little more clearly what he means by "requires," and what steps he intends to take to ensure the full productive use of the land.
As I see it, and as I think I know it, he will not only need all the assistance that the National Farmers' Union in Bedford Square can give him, but all the assistance that it can give him in the counties and districts, because that is where the food is really produced, that is where confidence must be won and held. I hope that the Minister will give all the encouragement and inspiration he can to the county executive committees and the district committees to help them achieve whatever objectives have been set.
At the end of paragraph 9, the White Paper states:
Third, technical improvement, which has already produced such significant results, must continue and in some directions be intensified.
Is the Minister satisfied that where this involves the use of steel for pig houses, for example, the present allocation will be sufficient to meet all the needs. We have heard something about a 50 per cent. reduction in the allocation of steel to agriculture. When we sat on the other side of the House, we were chivvied on more than one occasion as to whether we should, would or could provide the tools for the job. I hope that the Minister, in asking for a large increase of livestock, will not be held up because the allocation of steel is too small.
As I view the proposals in paragraph 12, everything seems to depend on the fulfilment of the objectives contained in sub-paragraphs (a) and (c). When the Labour Government started their grassland development campaign in 1947, we aimed to provide for 10 per cent. more livestock output from 10 per cent. fewer acres, thereby releasing about a million to one and a half million acres for bread grain, feed grain and potatoes.
It is fair to say that much progress has been made, but not nearly enough. Certain individual farmers have achieved proportionately more than the aim we set for them, but there are, unfortunately, far too many farmers who have yet barely begun. Yet we have it, on the authority of Sir James Scott Watson, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry, that it is an under-statement to say that the full application of available resources would double both output and profit per acre of grassland on a large proportion of our farms.
It seems to me almost incredible, that being the case—and I do not think there is any doubt about it—that any farmer large or small should hesitate to take full advantage of the later, more modern science. It is well known to every hon. Member that both Holland and Denmark are well ahead of this country in grassland cultivation, and they are still marching on. They have set themselves a further quota of improvement for the next 20 years. Accordingly, there is ample justification for urging the doubters, the laggards and hesitant into adopting modern methods, for without that the extra 250,000 tons of meat referred to at the end of paragraph 12 will certainly not be there in four years' time.
Moreover, to achieve this very desirable objective about an extra million sheep and about 400,000 extra calves each year, and one and a half million pigs over the four years' period will be required to produce the extra 250,000 tons of meat. That, in turn, means more and not less, labour. It means more capital expenditure and not less, and it means that much of the new capital expenditure will have to be borrowed at 5½ per cent. instead of at about 3½ per cent., because that happens to be the financial policy of the Government.
I wish the Minister and the industry well, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to deliver the tools for the job if we are to achieve these indications or objectives, or whatever one cares to call them. They are not regarded as targets, they are thought of only in terms of indications or objectives. They seem to be in the same category as the 300,000 houses.
The Minister will not mind my calling attention to sub-paragraphs (e)and (g)in


paragraph 12, which confirm the wisdom of the Labour Government when they produced the 1947 Act. There is reference in (e)to
enough potatoes to satisfy consumer demand";
and in (g)to
egg production (in proportions as required by consumer demand…).
Such implied limitations, embodied in the Bill which I presented, were torn to shreds and ribbons by the present Minister, the Leader of the House and all the Conservative Members who sat on the Committee which considered the Bill. Now, once again, apparently, they have changed their minds, not for the first time over the last seven months. As minds are there to be changed, I make no complaint but merely remind the Minister that we have not allowed this change to escape our notice.
We in this country are faced with a very grim situation. We are still the largest importers of food in the world, supplies are not so readily available as they used to be and what supplies are available are no longer cheap. Even in this country the costs of production of those items mentioned in Appendix III have increased since 1947 by no less than £221 million in respect of Review commodities alone.
Accordingly, there are no signs of cheap food either at home or abroad. Therefore, instead of holding the prices and then reducing them, as the Government promised when they were in opposition, all the signs are in the opposite direction. Yet there is no doubt that we need the food; we need that red meat and varied diet about which the Lord President talked during the Election.
Unless there is a very determined and sustained effort, not only by the farmers themselves but by county executive committees and the National Agricultural Advisory Service, and supported in every way by the Minister and the Government as a whole, these new-old proposals will not provide that extra 250,000 tons of meat.
I should like to ask the Minister two or three questions. Is he really satisfied that during the course of the foot-and-mouth epidemic we have been sufficiently drastic in our restrictions? Very grave doubts

have been expressed in many quarters, particularly by those farmers who have very large herds which they have spent many years of their lives building up, as to whether or not, fearing that restrictions might be too cumbersome to some sections of the community, we might be too easy at the expense of more outbreaks.
I have a 100 per cent. confidence in the veterinary service of the Ministry of Agriculture. I have seen some of the work which they have accomplished, and my question is therefore no implied criticism of them. I hope, however, that the Minister will have an observation to make on that point.
Secondly, can the Minister state what progress, if any, has been made with marketing schemes for fruit and vegetables? I know it is a very thorny problem. Many people have been at it during the last 30 years, and yet very little, or no, progress has been made, and I do not expect the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have solved the problem in seven months' time. However, it would be interesting if we could know how far we have gone, if we have gone any distance at all, with any new marketing scheme.
Thirdly, perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to tell the Committee what progress has been made with schemes under the Hill Farming Act and the Livestock Rearing Act, and what total acreages are involved.
Finally, in view of the pressing economic situation, I should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have one more look at the common lands problem. I know that this is a very thorny question, and I know that it needs very careful handling. There are as many points about this immediate difficulty as there are on a porcupine's back, but I cannot help thinking that the last Government were pressed into de-requisitioning in some areas far too hastily.
I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have another look at the common lands not yet de-requisitioned to see whether or not there should be some hesitation about de-requisitioning them—whether we should not at least for a year or two, think in terms more of food production than of scrub, thistles and bramble, which are neither use nor


ornament, as they say in Yorkshire. I know that I am asking for something troublesome for any Minister, but I think it is worth while looking at this problem and worth while that there should be some delay in de-requisitioning of the common lands not yet returned.
I repeat, we have no material complaint to make against the results of the Price Review. We are, however, gravely concerned about food production. I believe that food at this moment is as important as armaments, coal, or exports, and because I, not without some minor association with the industry, feel that, I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see to it that between now and the autumn the industry is not held up in any way whatsoever for want of the tools for the job.

4.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): I think that in replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) I ought, at the outset, to thank him for his helpful speech in support of the White Paper, which analyses the results of the Annual Review during this year. He has had unique experience in the operation of the Act and of the negotiations that led up to the Review. Before I discuss that White Paper, let me tell the Committee the exact position as far as foot-and-mouth disease is concerned, because I think that every hon. Member of the Committee, from whichever part of the country he may come, must be concerned about the position as it is today.
Since last November the coastal counties, first from Yorkshire to Kent, and subsequently from Kent to Dorset, have been bombarded by infection from the Continent. Although there is no proof, there is very strong circumstantial evidence to the effect that birds have been the carriers of this disease. This bombardment is still continuing, and is likely to continue for some time in view of the position in northern France.
I think it will be of interest to the Committee to have a few figures concerning northern France. In the nine Departments immediately opposite our coasts, from the Pas de Calais to Finisterre, there were about 1,400 fresh outbreaks in the first half of April. Superimposed on those outbreaks there were 1,700 further outbreaks in the second half of

April, and then in addition another 2,800 in the first half of May. So the Committee will appreciate that by the middle of May there were in existence just across the Channel some 6,000 sources of infection. Moreover, the peak of infection all the time was moving westwards across northern France, and when this was taking place—when this build-up of infection in northern France was taking place—it was corresponding very closely with the fresh outbreaks that occurred on the south coast of England during recent weeks, and also with the outbreaks in Jersey and Guernsey.

Mr. Frederick Peart: In view of what the Minister has just said about the serious position in France, may I ask him if the Ministry, or the Government at a high level, have made direct representations to the French Government on this matter, with a view to getting an agreement on a European level about it?

Sir T. Dugdale: My answer to that is that our veterinary advisers are always in touch with their opposite numbers on the Continent on this matter.

Mr. Peart: This is something far more important, surely, than a matter just for scientific advisers. Has there been an official approach made by the Minister, or even at Cabinet level?

Sir T. Dugdale: My answer to that is that contact is taking place all the time. If we are right in supposing that birds carry this infection, no approach by any Minister or anybody else can deal with it effectively. We cannot stop the flight of birds.
Since 21st April there have been about 20 initial outbreaks on the South Coast of England from Kent to Dorset, but these have given rise to about only 40 secondaries. I give these figures to the Committee so that the Committee can compare them with those I have just given for part of France, and I submit that they do give a striking indication of the effect of the present restrictions in checking the spread of infection.
In general, the position in the Midlands and in Scotland, which was causing some anxiety, has improved, though there were two cases only yesterday in a new area in Derbyshire. The only active centre in Scotland is the outbreak in Dumfries, where, I am afraid, further outbreaks


must be expected. The origin of the case in Dumfries is still obscure, in spite of most exhaustive inquiries.
Now, to view the picture as a whole. Since 14th November, 1951—since the real, big outbreak started—there have been 430 outbreaks. At present there are 14 infected areas in England and two in Scotland. One of the latter is being revoked, and six of the areas in England are being contracted by tonight.
In addition to the infected areas there are two controlled areas in operation in England. I should like to give the Committee the reasons for those controlled areas. The one on the South Coast is intended to guard against a rapid spread of the disease from further invasions from the Continent. The other which covers the Midland counties gives additional protection to the now very extensive clean part of the country. I should like the Committee to appreciate that.
As regards the methods of control, I have little to add to my previous statements in the House itself. Hon. Members, however, would like to know that this question was considered by the Agricultural Improvement Council at its meeting on 28th May, when its conclusions were recorded in terms I shall quote. The Committee will remember that I told the House that the Agricultural Improvement Council would consider the whole position. The Council reported as follows:
The Agricultural Improvement Council, having reviewed and discussed with the Director of the Pirbright Research Institute and the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry scientific work and research to date, and the position with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and measures of control in other countries, endorses the view that, in the circumstances in Great Britain, it is still necessary to follow the slaughter policy, which arrests the multiplication of virus as rapidly as possible, and, in conjunction with control of movement, has prevented the disease from becoming endemic. On present knowledge, any other method would not be so effective in preventing the spread of disease, and would, in the long run, be far more costly. In certain continental and other countries where it is not practicable to adopt a slaughter policy a more intensive use of vaccination would enable the disease to be better controlled. Every effort should be made to secure effective international action, and every encouragement should be given to the development of research work.
I accept that statement in its entirety, and it would appear to me to be conclusive.
In a leading article in the "Daily Telegraph" this morning there appears to be support for a slaughter policy plus immunisation, and I should like to say a word to the Committee about that. I speak now as a farmer myself, and I know only too well what it is like to contemplate the slaughter of one's own herd. If we could safely save even a few of the animals we now have to slaughter we would certainly do so.
There are certain vaccines which exist today which do provide a serviceable immunity against foot-and-mouth disease. The considerations are highly technical, and I will not develop them today, but I am advised that the principal objection to any known method of immunisation, leaving aside altogether that of cost— which, of course, would be very substantial—is that it does not act quickly enough to prevent the spread of the disease. In the Ministry of Agriculture we are deeply interested in the further development of vaccination, and, as I have already announced, the work at Pirbright is to be considerably expanded, and research in connection with vaccination will be pressed forward vigorously. But for the present time I could not take the risk of abandoning in any degree our present slaughter policy, and I feel sure that the House will concur in that view.
I think the House would also wish me al this stage to pay a tribute to the veterinary field staff of the Department of Agriculture, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. For nearly seven months now many of them have been working long hours for seven days a week. The farming industry, and all of us, owe them a debt of gratitude for their efficiency and devotion to duty over a long period during which they have been under great strain, and a great deal of responsibility has rested on their shoulders. I should like also to thank the Governments of Northern Ireland and Eire who responded so quickly and generously to the request of the Ministry of Agriculture for a loan of veterinary staff.
Lastly, in referring to foot-and-mouth disease, I should not like to let this occasion pass without saying how much I am certain we all sympathise with the promoters of the Royal, the Royal Highland and other shows which have been unable to include any of the cloven


hoof classes, and as Minister of Agriculture at this time I am grateful for their co-operation.
Having said that, I will try to answer the question put by the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Before the Minister proceeds, I should like to interrupt him, and I apologise for doing so. We are very grateful for his statement about the progress in respect of foot-and-mouth disease, but can he tell us the effect up to date, so far as his Department is concerned, on home supplies? Does he expect to be able to meet the demand in terms of meat and milk, or will this put him in a difficulty?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will have that figure obtained during the course of the debate. We have salvaged for human consumption about half the meat, and a very large proportion—I think two-thirds—of the pigs and sheep. It is difficult to give figures, but I will see that the figures up to today are given during the debate.
I was about to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that the standstill orders which have been imposed on this occasion over wider areas and for longer periods than ever before, including very bad epidemics right back in the '20s, in these infected areas have been adjusted so as to provide a wider area of protection around actual outbreaks. In general, these methods have been successful in checking the spread of the disease. The whole time the veterinary officers at the Ministry are watching and thinking of any new particular action that they could take which would help, but I am satisfied at the moment that everything that can be done is being done to fight this disease.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I think the Committee would be interested to know what the outbreak during the last few months has cost in compensation.

Sir T. Dugdale: Again I must give very round figures. Since the outbreak started up to now it is likely that the cost would be £1¾ million.

Mr. Gooch: That £1¾ million would have gone to the owners of herds. Can the Minister say how much compensation has been paid to farmworkers who have been stood off because herds have been slaughtered?

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think that arises on this question.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: I have never heard of any farmworkers being stood off as a result of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Surely not.

Sir T. Dugdale: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I, personally, have never heard of such a thing.

Mr. Gooch: I can assure the Minister that it does take place.

Sir T. Dugdale: I now turn to the White Paper itself. The right hon. Gentleman referred in considerable detail to the White Paper, and, if I may, I will try to sum up what he said and tell the Committee how we look upon the final award. The Review itself opened in not very encouraging circumstances on this occasion, because the expansion programme on which the industry had embarked in 1947 was running down, and there was very definite evidence that the rate of increase in the net output of the industry had been decreasing over the last 18 months.
On top of that, the aggregate net income of farmers had declined from £309 million in 1949–50 to £264 million in 1950–51, and since the 1951 Review farmers have experienced increases in the annual rate of cost of production amounting to £57 million on Review commodities—a figure referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Of this total, £16 million has been due to increases in wages which had already been recouped in full in the form of higher prices as the result of the Special Review held in November, 1951, so that at the beginning of this year when we started these discussions there remained a total of £41 million unrecouped increases in costs.
Against this background the Government decided to add £39 million to gross farm receipts, and of this total £15½ million was to take the form of subsidies, whilst the balance was added to the end price of review commodities. At the same time as that was taking place it was decided that the Government would not increase the Ministry of Food basic release price of feedingstuffs to farmers, but would continue to accept a loss on the Ministry of Food's trading account until 31st March, 1953.
This brings me to a point made by the right hon. Gentleman. The loss the Ministry of Food will bear is not included in the figure of £39 million which I have just given, but—and this is the important point for the Committee to consider—had feedingstuff prices been raised the figure of £41 million for increased costs would also have risen by a similar amount. I think that answers the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
A further rather complicated point, which is explained in the White Paper, is that the £2¼ million once-and-for-all addition to prices in the 1951 award has been duly deducted this year. That is in accordance with arrangements made by the right hon. Gentleman a year ago. These are, as I see them, the salient points of the 1952 award. Against the estimated increased costs at an annual rate of £57 million, which, I would remind the Committee, because I think that it is very important, are already being incurred, the farmers have received an award which, if production levels are maintained, will add £52½ million to their gross receipts, but this addition will be spread in different ways over two to two-and-a-half years ahead.
The additional income made available for the farming community has been distributed on this occasion in the way that the Government think will stimulate production in the directions in which an increase is most urgently required—that is by encouraging the rearing of calves and achieving a substantial expansion in the tillage acreage. We have borne in mind during these discussions and during the months that have gone by the particular difficulty suffered by the small man during a period of sharply rising costs, and we have taken special steps to meet these difficulties.
We have done this by giving a large part of the award in the form of production subsidies, by holding stable the price of feedingstuffs and by increasing the production bonus paid on the first 400–500 gallons of milk produced each month in winter and summer respectively. The general effect of the award should be to give farmers and particularly those who need it most an assurance of a reasonable reward for further effort and increasing production.
We have set before the farming community an objective of increasing production so as to raise the net output to a minimum—I advisedly use the word "minimum"—of 60 per cent. above prewar by 1956. In mentioning this general objective of increasing production by 60 per cent. above prewar, I would like to emphasise that it is a general objective, and we do not expect production of every commodity to increase at the same rate or to the same extent. We have indicated in the White Paper that the main increase must come from meat.
Before developing that theme, I should like to say a few words about milk. We have set out clearly in the White Paper what the requirements now are in our view, namely, the maintenance of the existing number of dairy cows and the expectation of a continuing increase in the yield per cow, and we are watching the course of production very carefully. We are satisfied that the treatment of milk within the award we have made will give a reasonable basis for the necessary confidence among milk producers.
Now I will turn to meat, especially beef and veal. The production of beef and veal in 1951–52 will probably reach the same level as last year, that is about 600,000 tons. The increase in production in the past two years has been due mainly to the large number of calves which were reared between 1947 and 1950. Since 1950—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this, although he did not give a date—the number of calves reared has gone down by nearly 300,000, and it is for this reason that the quantity of beef and veal marketed in 1953 will probably decline slightly. The Government have decided and have announced in the Review decisions to re-introduce the calf subsidy, and I hope to be in a position to announce the detailed arrangements very shortly. At the moment, the details are being examined with the industry to find the best method of administering the scheme so as to achieve the main objective of greater beef production.
I should like to turn to the subject of sheep. I would say in passing that I, too, am going round the country encouraging the farmers to keep more sheep. The numbers of sheep in the United Kingdom are still about 25 per cent, below pre-war. That is a serious position. On the other hand, in the hills, the sheep flocks have generally recovered from the disastrous


winter of 1946–47, and the relatively low figure for the total sheep population is largely due to the disappearance of hurdled sheep.
I am glad to be able to tell the Committee today that, according to my reports, this has been—and I do not know if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can confirm this for Scotland—an extremely good lambing season, and we hope thereby that we shall see a considerable increase in the sheep population this year. I can assure the Committee that we are doing all that we can to encourage more farmers in the lowlands to keep sheep.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked me—and I think that this is where I can best bring in the answers—for some indication of the progress made under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. I will give him the figures as I have ascertained them. From 1946, when the Hill Farming Act started, to 30th April this year, nearly 6,000 schemes under the two Acts had been approved or were under consideration for the United Kingdom as a whole. The holdings affected cover nearly five million acres. That does not mean that five million acres have been improved, but the holdings affected by the 6,000 schemes do cover five million acres. I think that is a satisfactory position up to the present.
I should like to tell the Committee about the pig position. The number of pigs in the United Kingdom has increased by well over one million during the past year. This is a result on which I should like to congratulate all those farmers and others who have been responsible for bringing it about. We must remember that it is only from pigs that we can get the extra meat that is needed in the immediate future. Any further increase in pig numbers must be based on home produced feed.
An increase in the immediate future in the number of the calves reared cannot provide any increase in the quantity of beef available for consumption in less than three to four years, while an increase in the number of sheep would not have an affect on our meat supply until after about two years. So pigs are the standby to which we must look for an immediate increase in the supply of meat. The March census shows a large increase in the number of fowls under six months old

and this suggests that the difficulties of the poultry industry are being faced and met.
I have shown that the pig and poultry population is increasing. That being so, our cropping policy must be built round the need to provide adequate feedingstuffs, and this brings me to the question of our tillage acreage. On former occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to the drop in the tillage acreage, and the right hon. Gentleman referred to it in his speech. We need to keep the figures before us.
At the war-time peak more than 11,500,000 acres were ploughed in England and Wales compared with 9.86 million acres in 1951. The United Kingdom figure for 1944 was 14,500,000 acres. If, as we confidently hope, we are well over the 10 million acre mark in England and Wales in this month's returns, the addition of 1 million acres to the United Kingdom figure will bring us very close to our objective of getting back to within a short distance of the war-time maximum.
The Committee will agree that it is now much easier to attain that figure than it was in 1944. It is encouraging to reflect that the achievement of a tillage area of something like the war-time peak is a much easier task now because our grasslands are so much better and are continuing to improve. I cannot but emphasise again to the Committee the importance that I attach to our achieving a high standard of grassland management.
There has been much correspondence in the Press and much discussion about efficiency. I would say at once that increased efficiency cannot be imposed on the industry from above; it can only be achieved as a result of a co-operative effort on the part of all concerned with agricultural production, and that includes not only those who work on the land but all whose activities contribute even indirectly to their production efficiency.
The Committee will agree that the agricultural industry is most fortunate in the relationships which have long existed between the farmer and the farm worker. When going about the country, I have been particularly struck by the consultations which are always taking place between them in regard to all activities on the farms. This in itself must make for better farming, and it should be en-


couraged in every way in all parts of the country.
When announcing the result of the Price Review, I said that the Government would take vigorous action to ensure that the limited area of agricultural land in this country is neither used inadequately nor misused through incompetence. Since then the National Farmers' Unions have called upon their members to co-operate wholeheartedly in an all-out effort to obtain a higher standard of productivity. That is a helpful gesture from these unions met together in conference, and I have no doubt that we shall receive that support.
Also since I announced the result of the Price Review I have had very full discussions with the chairmen of the county committees about the steps which they should take to ensure that the most effective use is made of the land at our disposal. I reminded them that the principle underlying the Agriculture Act is that the industry should judge itself.
As I see it, this can only be done if the industry also knows itself, and for this reason I attach great importance to the Farm Survey. This is essentially a task not for district officers but for the members of district committees who should be knowledgeable, responsible and respected leaders in their own areas. I hope that quicker progress will be made in completing the Farm Survey so that the industry shall know the exact position in all parts of the country.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not propose to encourage all district committees to confine the Survey exclusively to local farmers and not have any members of the N.A.A.S. with them. It has been brought to my notice that some members of district committees very much prefer to have with them officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service when they are doing the Survey.

Sir T. Dugdale: I know that very well, but I shall try to encourage the members of district committees to do it themselves because they are responsible people and at the initial stage this ought in no way to be official. That will be my approach to it.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: Is not there a danger in a large survey of this

nature that we shall take away from their own farms a large number of men who ought to be farming their own land instead of looking after the land of others?

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think there is much in that point. If we are to get the people whom we must have to make this a success we must have the best and most respected farmers in the districts. We shall find that the busiest men can always give a certain amount of their day or week to a good job well done.

Mr. Coldrick: I gather from the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he believes that the only people who should judge the efficiency of the industry are those drawn exclusively from the industry. Are we, therefore, to assume that on the basis of this White Paper very considerable sums of money will be paid by the Exchequer to the farming industry and that the Government itself will not act as a judge in determining the standard of efficiency?

Sir T. Dugdale: That goes very much further than what I was saying. My point was that the whole principle of the Agriculture Act is that the industry should run itself and that in return for the guaranteed prices under Part I the industry should ensure that it is efficient and giving good service to the country as a whole. In my remarks I was reflecting how I thought the industry should develop the Farm Survey so that the details of all areas might be obtained.
I now come to supervision and dispossession. There have been complaints in the past that the supervision procedure under the Act is too cumbersome. I think the main difficulty is that some committees have, in effect, taken over the farming of the land placed under supervision. That has made it impossible for them to supervise more than a very few farms at a time.
I am asking the committees in future, speaking in broad terms, to serve as far as possible only one direction on a farmer placed under supervision. This will enumerate the faults of his husbandry and direct him to improve it. It will be accompanied by an invitation to seek advice of the district officer or a district committee member, which the farmer will be left to do on his own. The period of supervision will not in future be unduly


prolonged. Committees have been asked to try to reach a decision at the end of 12 months, or at any rate 18 months if the farmer has been given a full farming year. We hope that that will be helpful for the work of the committees.
I am anxious that landowners should play their full and proper part in bringing about a higher general standard of farming efficiency. Too often in the past in response to an application by a landowner for a certificate of bad husbandry, committees have put the tenant under supervision. Committees have now been asked to do so only exceptionally when it seems that the farmers' failures are due to inexperience and there is a real chance of improvement. Normally in the majority of cases they should come to a definite decision one way or the other to grant or refuse a certificate. On their part, landowners must play their part in the campaign by setting a high standard of estate management and taking every opportunity of carrying out improvements designed to increase food production.
I come to the point that was put by the right hon. Gentleman when he opened the debate. He referred to the part of the White Paper where the Government have undertaken, where necessary, "to require that full productive use" should be made of the land. I hope that what I have said will assure him that we are very much in earnest about this. I have indicated the way in which we intend to tackle it. I should like to come to another point which he raised which is the subject of the continued cultivation of common land. There is nothing more disheartening to the local farmers than to find common land badly farmed in their own neighbourhood and nobody doing anything about it. I know that problem only too well.
At present I have power under the Defence Regulations to retain until December, 1954, possession of common land and other land requisitioned in the interests of food production. I propose to use that power wherever retention of such land can be justified in the national interest as a means of maintaining food production. But I do not underestimate the importance of the wider problem, and I am urgently considering the whole future of common land and how best the contribution that it can make to our national food supplies can be increased.
I will only here utter a personal view. Governments come and go, and some Governments may be here for a long time and some for a short time, but no Government since 1913 has ever done anything about common land, and the Government of 1913 only got as far as to say that something ought to be done about it. I believe that something is urgently wanted. The problem is bound up with technical difficulties and with Acts which come down through the centuries, and the only way we can get anything done is by a Government of some kind agreeing with the Opposition of the day to go so far, thus making a start in solving the problem. I am prepared to review the whole position to see if there is anything we can do in the interests of food production to deal with the common land problem and that is as far as I will go this afternoon.
I am afraid I have taken too much of the time of the Committee, but I must say one word on the subject of the long-term policy. I have called the arrangements that we have made and that I have so far outlined today as "the foundation of our long-term policy." I will shortly be bringing before the House other Measures which will show how we propose to continue what we have already begun. Before the House rises for the Summer Recess, I hope it will give approval to the Ploughing Subsidy Bill. In addition, the Second Fertiliser Subsidy Scheme will also be submitted to the House, when I will ask for authority to continue the existing assistance of 30 per cent. on phosphatic fertilisers and pay a new subsidy equivalent to 15 per cent. of the cost of nitrogenous fertilisers.
A number of forms of assistance, which were established under the Agriculture Act and have proved most useful in the past, will lapse during the summer unless appropriate steps are taken to prolong them. I refer to the lime subsidy, the financial assistance to farmers who undertake schemes for water supplies and field drainage and the marginal production scheme. Appropriate Orders will be submitted to the House in the near future.
Having said this, I must say a word about this loose term of "long-term policy," because it has been used as if there existed a magic formula that will solve all our problems. Obviously no


such thing exists at present, nor could any amount of study or consideration be expected to produce it. There are many topics to be covered and, as the White Paper says, we shall announce our decisions as and when they are reached.
In the meantime, as far as long-term problems are concerned, our preliminary consultations with the industry have already begun. I do not expect these discussions to result in the formulation of a set of hard and fast rules. What I am seeking to achieve is the establishment of underlying principles which will give us the guidance necessary to deal with day-to-day problems as they arise, while retaining not only continuity but the flexibility which, in dealing with a dynamic industry like agriculture, is so important if full production is to be maintained.
Among the problems that we are already considering is the right treatment of feedingstuffs prices together with the special position of the large number of small producers. I have already explained how their interests were safeguarded at the recent review, but I do not consider that we have necessarily reached the complete and final answer to their problem.
Following on that, one of the most important matters which we shall have to discuss with the National Farmers' Unions is the determination of the minimum prices for livestock and livestock products for the years 1954‣56. At the recent annual Review it was decided to leave these consultations over for future discussion, since in determining minimum prices three to four years ahead we must obviously pay regard to the kind of conditions which we are likely to have at that time. This means that we shall have to consider whether the present methods of implementing guaranteed prices and assured markets, together with the present methods of marketing are those which we should wish to see continued, or whether there should be any development of the present system.
My colleagues and I fully endorse the present guaranteed prices and assured markets embodied in Part I of the Agriculture Act, but we feel that the present method of fixed prices coupled in many cases with State purchase tends to make

them have too great a rigidity at any rate in the case of certain products.
As my colleague, the Minister of Food, has said on a number of occasions, the Government are most anxious to move as rapidly as we can towards a freer economy. Such a movement would inevitably entail changes—for which full provision is already made in Part I of the Act—in the present method of guaranteeing prices, and we should have to find an alternative system of protecting farmers against undue fluctuations in price which was compatible with a free economy. It would, at the same time, facilitate the restoration of conditions in which marketing boards could operate.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have always believed in the value of producer marketing boards. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and his hon. Friends also supported the Agricultural Marketing Acts, and, in fact, promoted legislation as recently as 1949 to bring about certain changes which even then were considered desirable. There should, therefore, be general agreement on the continued usefulness of producer marketing schemes, provided that full account—and I emphasise the word "full"—is taken of the changed place of agriculture in the national economy since pre-war days, and of the closer interest which the Government must continue to have in agriculture and food supplies.
These modifications will need very careful consideration since while it is essential that producer boards should have adequate powers to carry out their marketing functions effectively and maintain the full confidence of the producers, farmers at the same time must recognise that under modern conditions the Government have a special responsibility to safeguard the interests of the consumer and the taxpayer.
For these reasons, we think that in working out the modifications which will be necessary we shall have to strengthen, and at the same time streamline, some of the safeguards already included under the Agricultural Marketing Acts. I can say no more on the subject today, but I do want to take this opportunity of assuring the Committee of the importance which the Government attach to fitting the producer marketing boards structure


into the economic mechanism of modern conditions.
One of the most successful of the prewar marketing boards was the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales, and we have at present under consideration proposals from the Board that its former marketing powers should be restored to it. This is by no means so easy a matter as it might appear, since so long as the price of milk for its different uses and the quantities of milk which can be sold for different purposes are controlled by the Government and milk for normal sale is heavily subsidised, there is little scope for the restoration of marketing initiative to the Board. But, here again, we are anxious to move towards a freer economy which will enable the Milk Marketing Board to perform fuller marketing functions in the interests of both producers and consumers.
In opening this debate, the right hon. Gentleman said in general terms that he thinks the settlement which the Government have reached is on the right lines. I have no complaint about the fact that he thinks they are very much on the same lines as he himself laid down. Of one thing I am absolutely certain—and the more I go about the country today the more it comes home to me—and that is that if we are going to get the best from the land we want constructive criticism at Westminster all the time. But we must try to proceed on a common basis in order to give continuity and confidence to the industry for the years immediately ahead.
I hope the Committee as a whole will agree that the Government proposals will enable the industry to go forward boldly to a further expansion of food production against the background of a Government policy of which the repeated keynote shall be the confidence of the industry won through the recognition of its varied needs.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Mr. Stanley Evans.

Mr. Julian Snow: On a point of order. With very great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, may I know whether you have a list of speakers to be called because I see—and I submit this with the greatest respect— you have called one of my hon. Friends whom I may describe as one of the hardy

annuals in agriculture. There are others representing agricultural constituencies who never seem to have an opportunity to speak in these debates.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order, nor a proper remark.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) that the point of view which I have been expressing for the past two years has not overburdened the House to any undue extent because until very recently I have been the only one expressing it. Therefore, I do not think he should mind if that point of view continues to find expression.

Mr. Snow: I always find my hon. Friend's speeches most engaging, if at times, rather irrelevant.

Mr. Evans: That is very good. We have had a good deal of harmony this afternoon, and I hope nobody will take exception if I introduce a rather more effectively critical note into the debate.
But first let me say how sorry I am that the industry is once more afflicted with this wretched foot-and-mouth disease. I can readily understand that monetary compensation does not completely console a man who has spent many years building up a pedigree herd which has to be slaughtered. I very much hope that this wretched scourge will be speedily and completely mastered.
Having now exhausted my benevolence for the next 10 years, let me turn to some of the things that have been said. I do not look upon this industry with the same degree of complacency as apparently characterises the two Front Benches. This industry is the favourite son of the national economy and has been very handsomely treated in the last five years. For example, over the past four years its income has averaged £290 million compared with less than £60 million in 1938. Five times the income, and for that we have had a 40 per cent. increase in production. Some may consider that satisfactory. I do not.
These very substantial profits have, of course, been made possible by a continuing flow of taxpayers' money into the industry. This year alone the industry will be receiving about £80 million in what


I would call direct subsidies. That has nothing to do with the subsidies on milk to which the Minister made reference. As I understand it, the subsidies on welfare milk are £45 million and on milk for general consumption £50 million. That is a £95 million subsidy on one commodity, in addition to £80 million by way of direct subsidy to which reference has been made.
I take the view that giving the farmers more money is like drinking sea water to quench a thirst, and so far as this February Farm Price Review is concerned, it reminds me of crown and anchor—the more we put down, the less we pick up. For example, the Committee may have noticed from the figures in the White Paper that last year the production of oats went down by 200,000 tons, that is, by 8 per cent., rye went down by 25 per cent., wheat by 12 per cent., sugar beet by 13 per cent., potatoes by over 1,500,000 tons, representing 16 per cent., that the production of mutton and lamb was down by 8,000 tons, and that 261 million fewer eggs were placed at the disposal of the British housewife.
One would think that following these catastrophic falls in production—catastrophic from the point of view of the nation struggling to close an import-export gap—the income of the industry would have taken a severe knock. Lo and behold, the facts are the exact opposite and the White Paper speaks with considerable satisfaction of the return to previous levels of the income of the industry. For example, it says on the first page:
After some decline in 1950–51 the aggregate net income of the industry seems likely to have returned in 1951–52 to approximately its 1949–50 level.
Now the 1949–50 profit was an all-time record at £309 million; so that last year, and following this decline in production which I have described as catastrophic, and accepting the assumption of the White Paper, the profit of the industry did not go down as a result of the fall in production but went up by £45 million.
I want to ask this Committee and the nation: if indolent farmers are to be insulated against the economic consequences of their apathy and inertia in advance and at public expense, what incentive is there for them to be efficient?
[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) should not mutter and mumble. If he wants to interrupt me, I will sit down. The fact of the matter is that the N.F.U., by what I can only describe as a masterly technique of public-spirited blackmail, are succeeding in insulating their membership against every economic and other kind of ill. If this industry is to go on being protected from all the afflictions to which other less favoured industries are subjected, I want to know what incentive there will be for increased productivity?
One of the things about the industry that worries me is the bovine complacency of its leadership. On figures given to me, the nation this year will get about 265,000 tons of butter. That will give us our two or three ounces each, whatever it is. Of that 265,000 tons, 259,000 tons will have to be imported. Only 6,000 tons of butter will be forthcoming from the British dairy industry; only 6,000 tons out of a total consumption of 265,000 tons. And this from a dairy industry that is in possession of subsidies on milk, providing it with an artificial market amounting to £95 million, in addition to its share of the £80 million direct subsidy.
This is really scandalous. The President of the N.F.TJ. got up in front of the farmers in December, 1950, and said that in five years we would have 375 million gallons more milk from the same number of cows. I want to ask whoever is to wind up this debate what part of that additional 375 million gallons which is to be forthcoming at no increased cost has been taken into account in arriving at the Farm Price Review settlement? And, if it is not too indelicate, I want to ask what amount is included in these figures for, shall I say, the unconventional sale of eggs? I am told that we have now arrived at a stage where fewer than half the eggs coming off British farms are reaching the packing stations. I am also told by knowledgeable people that the income of the industry from these unconventional sales may be in the neighbourhood of £50 million a year. I want to know whether that has been taken into account in arriving at this settlement.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, does not what he is saying prove


what I have said on many occasions, that there is no single commodity for which the farmer is getting a subsidised price that he could not get more for in the open market? Eggs are a case in point. They make more in a free market——

Hon. Members: Black market.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: That is what the French say.

Mr. Evans: If I may intervene in this debate I can answer that. We know we lose the Income Tax on it. We do not mind that. I shall not speak of ethical considerations. We reconcile ourselves to that loss, but we should not like to think that we were having to pay more money for our commodities because some acknowledgement of this unofficial source of income had not been made.
My friends and I, who moved a Motion in the House on 4th April calling for an inquiry by a Royal Commission into this industry, and into the manner in which the 1947 Act has lived up to the hopes and aspirations which we had for it, ask for it again today. We feel that after five years it may be that the administration of the Act has revealed weaknesses which might now be remedied. That is all we ask. In asking that, we cast no aspersions on anybody, but we feel that this industry, one of our two major vital industries, if we can only get it going, will do much to close the import-export gap. We feel very much that it is languishing, that it is at no more than half-cock and that it is failing to perform its proper function; and we believe that that is due very largely to the operation of the February Farm Price Review.
Do not forget that there are many people in the industry, farming very large areas of land, who are not stirred to greater production by more money, but to whom, in fact, more money means a deterrent. There are a large number of men operating in those conditions to whom more money simply means that they are brought into the higher Surtax brackets even earlier, so that from the viewpoint of increased productivity the Chancellor of the Exchequer has virtually all the advantages.
I was talking the other day to a man who had found out that if, through increased costs and a loss in productivity,

his profits went down by £3,600, the out-of-pocket loss to him would be £253, and that the whole of the balance of that loss would be sustained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Was he a hill farmer?

Mr. Evans: An inquiry, therefore, is necessary to examine whether it is not a fact that in some cases more money does not mean more production, but means less production. At the other end, we need an examination and an inquiry to find out whether the February Farm Price Review is not year after year freezing to the land people who for some reason or other are unfitted to remain in possession of large slices of the nation's most vital asset.
These prices are enabling people to go on farming who in the ordinary way would go bankrupt, and who, in going bankrupt, would make way for some of the thousands of second and third sons of good farmers or for the products of the agricultural colleges and universities who are now coming out of the colleges and finding it quite impossible to get land.
For all these reasons, we say that there is necessity for an inquiry. If anyone doubts my contention that the industry is languishing, is running at half-cock, and is failing the nation lamentably at a very critical period in our history, let them read the "Farmer's Weekly" leading article of 18th January, 1952. I should like to refresh the memories of hon. Members with this short excerpt:
At such a time one might expect N.F.U. thought and action to be positive and progressive, matching both the needs of the hour and the parlous condition of the agricultural industry.
Mark the words used: "the parlous condition"; not parlous financially, quite obviously—
But there is little hope of this. With one or two exceptions, the county resolutions are like a dismal gramophone record with the needle stuck in a groove first made at 45, Bedford Square.
That, of course, is the headquarters of the little Napoleon and his cardinals.
Seldom is any principle enunciated beyond ' Gimme'.
This, of course, is the "Farmer's Weekly," and not the hon. Member for Wednesbury. It continues:
This, and a mere urging of the Government to do something, is neither worthy of the Union nor of the industry.


That is scathing criticism, and it is very important that we should have this inquiry to go into the charges that are here made.

Mr. Baldwin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Evans: I hope that we shall get support for the project that is now supported by the "Economist," by the" Daily Mirror, "by the" Birmingham Gazette" and by the "Wolverhampton Express and Star." I have now got in all the newspapers that are likely to do me any good.
I and my hon. Friends who stood with me on 4th April—and there were 20, including five ex-Ministers of a Labour Government—felt then, and feel now, very strongly that there is this necessity for an inquiry into the industry, because sooner or later, if it wants long-term stability and prosperity—and that is what I want for it—the industry will have to come to terms with its fairy godmother, the State, and with its only customer, the British housewife.
At present, the British housewife is getting a very scurvy deal indeed from the British agricultural industry. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was holding forth about the parlous, dangerous condition in which the nation stands, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that without some wage restraint there is no hope of recovery; but surely, neither of these gentlemen is unintelligent enough to think that the British housewife, constantly forced to dun her husband for more money, is not going to tell him to demand more wages.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Member remember, when making remarks about the British housewife, that a great many British housewives happen to be the wives of agricultural workers, and that if his recommendations were followed the wives of those agricultural workers would probably not be making a living at all?

Mr. Gooch: They would be making 25s. a week.

Mr. Evans: Nobody wants agricultural workers to go back to 25s. a week. That is a lot of nonsense. As the hon. and gallant Member brings in the question of the agricultural workers, and tries to apply the construction that I am attacking their

living standards, I will devote myself for a minute or two to that aspect of the question.
One of the most sinister things about the present set-up, in which farmers only have to go to the February Farm Price Review to get reimbursement for increased wages, is the danger of syndicalism that is now arising in the industry. The agricultural workers ask for £7 a week. My platelayers, men on the railway, paying 23s. 6d. a week, with no garden, no fowl, no pig at the bottom, no free milk and no perquisites, have a basic wage of £5 10s. a week, living in an urban area. The agricultural workers now want £7 a week.

Mr. M. Follick: Why not?

Mr. Evans: If the farmer can go to the February Farm Price Review and transfer the cost of this increased wage to the taxpayer or to the housewife, or to both, why not? But how can we solve our problems in this way?

Mr. Percy Wells: If what my hon. Friend has said is true, how does he explain why every time an application comes before the Central Agricultural Wages Board the farmers' representatives oppose it strenuously?

Mr. Evans: The intelligent people are not so concerned with what is apparent as with what is real; the point is that they get it. Therefore, I say to the Minister that this is an aspect which will have to be watched very carefully. We have in this country, for the first time, a threat of syndicalism arising out of this industry.
I return to the question of this clash— make no mistake there is a clash—between the affluence of the farmer and the ability of Black Country housewives to live. I have said this before and will say it again; I do not think it does any good to conceal the reality of the fact that there is a clash of interests. If the affluence of the agricultural industry is produced at the cost of my housewives, of course there is a clash, and I want to see this subject brought back into active debate in the House.
One of the troubles and one of the causes of the unhealthy condition in which the industry now finds itself has been the conspiracy of silence between the two Front Benches. What is happening


is that both parties are claiming praise for agricultural prosperity while the Opposition of the day blames the Government of the day for the high cost of living. It is not a very vigorous Opposition, if I may say so, but a token Opposition pending the time when they change sides. Therefore, I want to see this subject brought back into debate in the House.
I think the nation has been very badly let down by this industry. With their basic raw material, the unchanging good earth, these people have been very well circumstanced for waging a private war of their own on inflation during the last five years. Instead, agricultural economics have been one of the most inflationary factors at work in this country. Indeed, it was due to the increases given to farmers two or three years ago that the wage freeze was first thawed.
The underlying and deadly dangerous psychology of this February Farm Price Review is precisely that farmers are not subject to ordinary standards of accountability and efficiency. No matter what economic storm blows, they must be exempted from it. They are now getting exemption in advance. As I pointed out earlier, it is a most astonishing fact that this industry, which experienced such a catastrophic fall in its production last year, found its income up, on the basis of the Farm Price Review White Paper, something like £45 million.
I say again that this industry which is receiving so much benevolence and so many hundreds of millions of pounds from the State, from the taxpayer—in addition to what the farmers get from the housewife—stands in urgent need of very careful investigation. The farmers can have the shirt off my back if they want, if they will give us the results— [An HON. MEMBER: "They want the skin off your back."] I know they do, they are on a feather bed. They not only have a feather bed, but this February Farm Price Review tucks them up in it every year.

Mr. Robert Crouch: I am sure that the last thing the hon. Member wishes to do is to mislead the Committee, and I am sure he does not want to mislead the Committee to such an extent as to think that the farmers are the only section of the community which receives State assistance. I should

like to ask whether he can tell me the difference between what he calls a subsidy for agriculture and a housing grant towards building houses. If he looks up the information, he will find that there has been a corresponding increase in housing grants over the last seven years with the increase in what he calls State subsidies for farm prices.

Mr. Evans: I think I had better stick to agriculture and not go on a housing expedition. I hope the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) will catch your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and be able to put his point of view.
I am dealing with this industry because I think it is one of the two industries which can do the most to get us out of the cart. We have 20 per cent. of farmers who are the best in the world and 20 per cent, who are the worst. We have 60 per cent, of whom I would say the prevailing climate is one of dull mediocrity. We can, and I hope we shall, deal with the 20 per cent. who are the world's worst, but the 60 per cent, provide a problem.
They provide a problem not less because the N.F.U. leaders continue to hug to themselves the psychology of "gimme" instead of concerning themselves more with good husbandry. I should be the last to deny their negotiating ability, in fact I make the suggestion that they should be entered for the Olympic Games at Helsinki. If these N.F.U. heavyweights went to Helsinki imagine amidst all the anxiety about Bannister and Chattaway, what a comfort it would be to know that the tug-of-war was in such capable hands.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Denys Billiard: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) in detail, except to take him up on one point in regard to the suggestion that in this country we should be producing an increased proportion of butter. That seems a novel suggestion. I wonder whether he has given consideration to the question whether it would ever be possible, in addition to providing the liquid milk, which I think he would agree is so necessary to the health of the people, and the beef, to produce the butter as well. If he wants a practical lesson in agricultural economics, I suggest that he takes a farm with a herd of cows and goes in


for butter-making. He will find the true reality of the economics of butter-making in this country.
Secondly, I should like to take up the question of the wages of farm workers. I thought there was implied in the remarks of the hon. Member a suggestion that the agricultural worker should always be at the bottom of the ladder.

Mr. Hobson: Nonsense.

Mr. Bullard: I think we have heard that suggestion on manv occasions.

Mr. S. N. Evans: The hon. Member must not impute things to me which are not true.

Mr. Bullard: I hope it is not true, but I thought it was contained in the remarks the hon. Member made about the demand for an increased wage.
I wish to return to the subject which is the basis of the White Paper we are debating. The real test of this White Paper and the policy contained in it is, does it match up to the need of the hour for increased food production? Reference has been made to the remarks yesterday of the Prime Minister, and we have heard today some further words about the economic situation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is certainly true that many of the sources of food from abroad will not continue to be available to us. Mr. Amery in letters to "The Times" has, in very powerful fashion, been drawing attention to the fact that we are bound to have increased emphasis on home food production.
I want to discuss the production side. The aim of the White Paper, so it says, is to increase production by 60 per cent, above the pre-war figure. Some people may think that is not sufficient, but I would say that the final stages of getting that increased production are much harder to attain than were the earlier stages when we had a great acreage of half-used grassland to work on, which we ploughed up and developed during the war.
The more immediate cause of our anxiety is the fall in the food production which has been mentioned, the tillage acreage, and particularly I think the most serious sign is the fall in the number of yearling cattle which occurred for the

first time since before the war. No one except those who have had experience in the rearing of a bunch of cattle can appreciate what the effect of this means or can realise that it means that we cannot increase our beef production for two or three or more years. If everyone realised that, they would appreciate the seriousness of this position.
Reference has been made to the need for tools to do the job. Having a good deal of fenland in my constituency, I was worried when I heard that the amount of capital available for land drainage work was likely to be reduced. Much of the lowest lying fenland around Denver Sluice lies in my division. I hope that the drainage position there will be carefully watched. Many of us, too, are worried about the labour side, and whether the long-term effect of the call-up of agricultural workers will leave enough people within the industry to carry out the intensification we require.
I want now to say a word about the price factor. With few exceptions, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee accept the machinery of the February Price Review and the guaranteed prices. On the whole, I think, it has been a very good bargain for the consumer. We should do well to consider what price a fat bullock would fetch today in the open market if in fact there were no controls or rationing. It would make a very big price indeed. On the open market, beef would be fetching a price more comparable with what it is fetching in the United States, which is somewhere near twice as high as here.
There is a new feature introduced into our price structure this time, namely, the production grants. I wish to consider that question and examine whether the production grants should be a permanent or a temporary feature of our price structure. I share the dislike of subsidies which I think most people have, certainly most farmers, because they give rise to so many opportunities for misunderstanding. But I think that in present circumstances, and probably for several years to come, certain of these production grants will have to be continued.
The ploughing up subsidy is not one which should be retained for a very long period. Its purpose is to redress the balance of tillage and arable land which


has been going back in the direction of increasing grassland and decreasing tillage. So far as the subsidy helps to redress that balance, well and good, but I do not think it should be regarded as a permanent payment to be made to people to plough up short leys which they are at present laying down. The ley system is one of the most important developments in agriculture of recent years, and I cannot think that a payment of this kind would in the long-run be beneficial to that system.
I have been worried to see the increase in grassland which has been going on. I know all about the improvements in technique both of grassland management and conservation and I think the previous Government were right in initiating their grassland campaign, which I have no doubt will be continued with vigour by the present Minister. But there has been a very great increase in grassland in some districts and I would not worry at all about the use of the powers which county agricultural executive committees have in order to keep that grass in check.
There is a great tendency for leys, once they are laid down, to stay down. I knew an old local government man who always used to chuckle when a temporary official was appointed to his council, because, he used to say, "He will soon be permanent." That applies to temporary leys as well. I am a great believer in the plough as the basis of agriculture in this country.
I believe that the fertiliser subsidy comes into a different category. The amount of fertilisers used on the poorer land in this country has greatly increased in the last few years and some remarkable results have been achieved on the breck land in Norfolk and elsewhere. Everyone concerned with agricultural policy must exercise his mind as to how we are to give proper returns to the people on the poorer land without over-doing the people on the better lands.
I farm on the silt land round Wisbech which is considered to be some of the best land in the country, but I am very ready to recognise the essential difficulties of this problem and I think that this fertiliser subsidy offers one means of assistance to farmers on the poorer land. In connection with the potato business,

which is most important, I think we should maintain a reasonable potato acreage. The cost of seed plus fertilisers has become excessive and has tended to discourage the small producers especially from growing this necessary and intensive crop.
There is, I think, a special case for regarding the calf subsidy as a more permanent feature of our price policy. We have a very delicate balance in this country between milk and beef. If we were to push up beef prices to make the business really economic, it would lead to the slaughtering of heifers. The raising of beef cattle is bound to be a slow and a not very profitable business. No one would advise a young farmer who had little capital to start beef production as one of his main lines. It is not quick enough or profitable enough. But clearly we cannot raise beef prices out of proportion to milk.
I believe that the beef of this country has to come very largely from calves reared in the dairy herds, but what inducement is there without some payment half-way along the line for the person to set out to breed beef calves from the dairy herd, which we know should be done today, especially in view of the wonderful development of artificial insemination? It would have been wrong to have allowed the calf subsidy to lapse. I do not think that we shall be able to do that for a good many years.
I want to say a word on the feeding-stuffs subsidy mentioned in paragraph 13 of the White Paper, for that is what it really amounts to. This is a move which might deter people from concentrating on growing their own food. But another great danger of this type of subsidy is that it may delay the time when we can liberate home-grown cereals from the ration. I do not believe that any single move would do more good to the pig, poultry and other livestock industries than the action of releasing home-grown cereals from the ration and getting away from a system which is based on 1939 and which is not now very equitable. If that system could be modified in some way, it would be useful.
I turn to the other side of production—to the step which the Minister says he will take to require land to be cultivated in a proper way. In these debates we often hear references to the two methods


of the stick and the carrot as alternative inducements to the farmer. This is a most insulting analogy. It is insulting to the object which is placed between the carrot and the stick. It is not at all proper to refer to the industry in this way.
I have never been a donkey proprietor myself, but in my time I have kept several working horses. I have always thought that intelligent management and proper arrangement of the work, providing the animal with suitable instruments to draw, was the best means to get work out of the horse, rather than the supposed alternatives of the stick or the carrot. I do not like that analogy any more than I do that used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury, who referred to the farming community as "bovine." Neither of those is a helpful analogy.
The real way to get increased production is through continued technical development. We have the finest research organisations in the world, but the information they secure must not merely be available but must be put over to the farmers. The method to adopt is a combination, a partnership, between the agricultural committees composed of farmers and farm workers and the National Agricultural Advisory Service. It is a partnership. It is a great mistake to imagine that it could be anything else.
I hope that the Minister will keep in the closest touch with the committees on these technical points. I should like to mention one or two which are of great importance. One is in reference to the development of the pig industry. It is essential that the food eaten by the pigs should be economically used. Since the end of the war we have had to build up our pig industry quickly, and not always with the best resources by way of feedingstuffs. We have had to use makeshifts. We have not got anything like the Danish system. They have a system of litter testing, with arrangements to make sure that the very best strains of pigs are used. That is the basis of their breeding. The other factor was the question of beef calves. There is enormous scope for technical development to ensure that the right sort of dairy cows are used to breed the best beef cows which must be the foundation of the industry.
I hope that the Minister may yet see his way to re-establish the system of liaison officers. These people did extremely valuable work during the war. There are people available today with the requisite amount of public spirit who would do similar work in this most necessary service.
In connection with the agricultural committees and the National Agricultural Advisory Service, I would say that many of us feel that the technical development side of the work is hindered to some extent by the fact that the two functions of development and police work are carried out by the same committee. Although I do not think that many of us agree entirely with the Report of the Ryan Committee, it would be helpful if we could devise a scheme whereby the two functions could be separated. This is very much a matter of personalities, of leadership being given to the committees, rather than of altering the organisation.
I am glad that the Minister has sent out his instructions to committees to tighten up their supervision procedure, the power of landlords to obtain certificates of bad husbandry and the rules about notices to quit. I agree here with the hon. Member for Wednesbury that probably too great a measure of security has been given to the industry by these provisions of the Agriculture Act. One weakness in the organisation is the use made of district committees. It is customary to say that these are the cornerstones of the whole organisation. That used to be the case. The Minister has said that he attaches special importance to the farm survey as the basis of all this work, but I am not sure whether an elaborate survey of the work to be done in later years is exactly what we want.
I should much rather see more individual consideration given by the district committees to the farms, parish by parish. Action could then be taken. It need not be compulsory action. It may be that all that would be necessary would be a visit from members of the committee or the advisory officer. I am suspicious of a vast amount of material in the files of the committees which may be used at some distant date. I hope that we shall see that the survey is followed up by the necessary action straight away rather than that there should be delay.
The policy outlined in the White Paper is a foundation rather than a complete building. I have never believed that the price factor alone was the only important consideration in getting increased production. I do not believe that a mere adjustment of prices, however long the negotiations may be and however delicately done, will of itself solve food production problems. It is clear that the farmers and the farm workers have to do the work. The Government, on their part, have given a start. They have shown willing. I sincerely hope that the Minister will continue, through his agents in the agricultural committees, to give all possible encouragement and leadership.
It is a great mistake to leave the committees on their own, sending them a circular letter once or twice a week. That is the very worst form of communication between the Minister and the committees. If leadership is shown, then there are hopes that we shall redress the setback which agricultural production has suffered and that we shall attain the goal set out in the White Paper.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I listened with a great deal of interest to both the speech of my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture and the very excellent statement that came from the present Minister. The White Paper does give some indication of the Government's future production policy, but the promised long-term policy has yet to emerge. There are, I think, sufficient hints given on the general line to be taken, but I do not think it is sufficient to say that the Government will, where necessary, require that full productive use is made of the land.
I need hardly remind the Committee that these are critical days from the standpoint of food. Millions of people in the under-developed countries do not get enough to eat, and production does not keep pace with ever-increasing populations. The Food and Agriculture Organisation stated quite recently that the world's need for more food has not yet begun to be met, and it is obvious that a grave responsibility rests not only upon food producers in other countries but upon those in Britain.
Despite the criticism that has been offered here today, I want to say that I am convinced that our farmers will do

their duty, and that, in doing that duty, they will have the loyal co-operation of their workers. Farmers who do not come up to expectations should be subject to directions on the part of the county agricultural executive committees.
It is evident from what has been said up to now that the Government intend to use the 1947 Act in their drive for more food, and I am not complaining. I appreciate the line taken by the Government, because, after all, the Labour Government's Act remains unchallenged as the most effective peace-time farming legislation. If it has failed in some respects, it has failed because it has never been fully operated. May I add that the drive for more food has to be made evident not only on the farms, but has to come also from a Minister who knows what he wants and is determined to get it.
We have been told lately that the change of attitude of farmers reflects a loss of confidence in the long-term profitability of the industry. In some quarters we are told that the farmers are fearing that a slump is coming. I think a resolute Minister, with his mind made up, can remove what fears there may be. We can never feed ourselves in this country, but we can feed more people than we are doing today, and, with markets guaranteed, a satisfactory Price Review and a helpful Ministry, the response on the part of our own food producers should be great and effective.
My right hon. Friend the former Minister called the Committee's attention to the remarks made by the present Minister when he met the members of the council and the county chairmen and secretary of the National Farmers' Union, and I fully endorse what the Minister had to say on that occasion, when he remarked that an agreed settlement of prices implied obligations on both sides. I think that my right hon. Friend quite properly quoted the Minister's tribute when he said that the Agriculture Act has to be worked both by the Government and the industry with all the energy and will at their command.
The Minister must not only appeal to the patriotic instincts of the farmers and provide incentives; I say quite seriously to him that, where this method fails, he should be courageous and resolute, and at the same time be prepared to give every support to the members of his own county agricultural executive committees. The


White Paper states that it is not intended to set detailed targets, but I think that county targets should be set, and that, if they are, they will help to stop the production of those crops which are not as essential as others.
I want to say a word in defence of the people who are farming the land of Britain today. I have never been slow to criticise certain features of British farming, but that is not to say that those engaged in the industry are incompetent or lacking in enterprise. After all, British agriculture today has a great deal to its credit, and I want to quote from an article which appeared in "The Times Survey of British Agriculture" written by Professor Sir James Scott Watson, Chief Scientific and Agricultural Adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, in which he said:
Our acre yields indeed fall short of those achieved by our next-door neighbours in Holland, Belgium and Denmark, but our level of productivity—of output per man-year—is much the highest in Europe. Moreover, the progress made since 1939 is about as high as in any country in the world. No doubt our farming is better than it has ever been, and is improving faster than it has ever done. We cannot hope that that efficiency will even out completely at the wished-for level, for the personal qualities that make up the master farmer are but rarely found combined in any one man. But the range in efficiency, between farmer and farmer, is surely wider than it need be. What we mainly need is a revival of the spirit that has carried us through other periods of crisis—the hungry forties of the last century or the Second World War.
While I agree that the range of efficiency between farmer and farmer is wider than it need be, I think there are certain steps that can be taken, and I am very glad to hear that the Minister intends to take some of them in order to bring the inefficient farmers into line with the efficient ones.
Reference has been made to the use of horses in agriculture and to the scrapping of horses and the increased use of machinery. I do not think that the use of machinery always makes for efficiency. It may reduce the burden on the men, but I think that farmers might usefully spend less on machinery and more on their men.
I do not propose to go into the question of wages, because the wages settlement is now before the Central Wages Board. I was interested in a newspaper report a few days ago concerning a visit

of some Australian farmers to my own county of Norfolk. As they went round while the county was looking at its best, they were surprised at the cheapness of British labour. In Australia, I understand, the farm worker receives £11 12s. a week, against our men's £5 8s.
We have some of the best and most competent farm workers in the world, and I say to the Minister that they are all wanting to play an effective part. The White Paper gives the aggregate costs increases which were taken into account in the Price Review, and the labour increased cost is the lowest of all. Rent and interest, machinery expenses, feeding-stuffs, fertilisers, road and rail transport and other items have all gone up very much more than labour costs.
Men are still leaving the land. The latest figures show an upward trend of about 15,000, but, after all, this is merely a seasonal increase, and I do not think we should be deceived by the figures. It is very significant that, between March, 1951, and March, 1952, over 19,000 regular men, upon whom the success of British agriculture depends, left the land. Men will continue to leave the land until their wages and conditions in farming more nearly approximate to those obtaining in other, and even in less essential, industries.
I assure the Minister, if he needs any assurance on this point, that the farm workers are as anxious as we are in this Committee that the food drive should be a success, and that they desire to play a full part in it.- I think it will enable the Minister to appreciate the line upon which farm workers are thinking today if I read to the Committee a resolution passed only a week or so ago at the Conference of the National Union of Agricultural Workers on this question of agricultural production. It says:
We consider that any sound agricultural policy must include the proper equipment, use and management of the land, the dispossession of farmers proved to be incapable of maintaining a reasonable standard of husbandry, a serious attempt to raise the degree of efficiency achieved by the bulk of the farmers, and wages, working conditions and rural amenities such as will attract and retain on the land the type of labour required for efficient and economic production. Further, the Conference urges that the organised farm workers who have repeatedly expressed their willingness to co-operate in any reasonable way with the Government and with the employers


be given adequate representation on agricultural executive committees which are charged with the duty of carrying out the agricultural expansion programme.
I hope, in connection with the food drive, that a link can be established with the production methods in other European countries. I am not supporting the proposal that there should be an integration of European agriculture. After all, I think our first duty is to our Commonwealth countries, and I should deplore the possibility of any Continental country being in a position to dictate the lines on which our future agricultural policy should proceed.
A few days ago I had the pleasure of presiding at the Congress of the International Land Workers' Federation at Salzburg at which delegates from many countries discussed this question, and I think it important that the Committee should know what the world's farmers are thinking about it. The Congress, while not declaring in favour of the integration of Western European agriculture, supported, on certain conditions, closer co-operation on agriculture in Western Europe.
I should like whoever replies on behalf of the Government to reveal the mind of the Government on this very important question. I hope it may be possible for the European countries together to make an appropriate contribution towards what we all desire to achieve, the freeing of the world from want of food.

The Chairman: Mr. Legh.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. Am I to understand, Sir Charles—this is, I know, a confession of ignorance of procedure—that this debate will stop anyhow at 7 o'clock and that if the next business continues till, say, 9.30, there will then be only half an hour in which to continue this debate?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is perfectly correct. This debate will be interrupted at 7 o'clock and if the debate on the City of London (Guild Churches) Bill runs on till 10 o'clock there will be no more agricultural debate. On the other hand, if the debate on that Bill takes only an hour, there will still be two hours in which to continue this debate.

Mr. Snow: Am I to understand that this important industry is to be debated

in this Committee to the tune of approximately two back bench speakers and four Front Bench speakers and that many of us representing agricultural interests who have sat through agricultural debates on several previous occasions and who have never been called will not have another opportunity of speaking on this subject for some time to come, because there will not be another agricultural debate until the autumn?

The Chairman: Of course, this is a Supply debate and the Opposition might put down agriculture again. That is not my affair. But as regards the interruption of this debate at 7 o'clock, under the Standing Order, I, as Chairman of Ways and Means, have to put down the Private Bills objected to, because they have to be debated. I am afraid, therefore, there is nothing that can be done about it. I am very sorry, but I am quite powerless in the matter.

Mr. Snow: I fully appreciate your personal position, Sir Charles. The insertion of this Church of England business was not your responsibility, but it was the responsibility of the Government to provide the time. It is really a scandalous method of operating the business of the House when agriculture is dealt with in this way, and I should like to register a protest.

The Chairman: We will deal with one thing at a time. The hon. Gentleman is not correct when he says that it is the Government who find time for Private Bills. It is the Chairman of Ways and Means. As regards the interruption at 7 o'clock, I am afraid that no one on either side has any power to alter the arrangements. It is done under the Standing Order. I am sorry it has to be done, but I have no alternative.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Am I to understand, Sir Charles, that the Leader of the House had nothing to do with this arrangement and that it is entirely a question of the action of the Chairman of Ways and Means who inserted this business into the middle of a most important debate on a vital issue on which many Members on both sides of the Committee who represent agricultural constituencies want to speak? Is that a correct interpretation of the position, Sir Charles?

The Chairman: I do not think that is quite a fair way to put it. I have to select a day in advance for Private Bills to which objection has been raised to be debated at 7 o'clock, and I selected today. Whatever the business put down by the Government, Members always resent the time taken by Private Business.

Mr. Price: Agriculture?

The Chairman: Agriculture or anything else, it is always resented.

Mr. James Simmons: It is in my recollection, Sir Charles, that on a previous occasion when business was interrupted on your Motion the debate was then carried on for the period taken up by the business for which the interruption was made. May we know why that procedure is not being carried out on this occasion?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing a debate on a Private Bill with an Adjournment Motion on a matter of urgent public importance, on which occasion the time taken is made up.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it impossible, Sir Charles, to have any extension of time after 10 o'clock in these circumstances? Would the Government be willing to grant such an extension?

The Chairman: That is a matter for the Government to deal with and has nothing to do with me, but I think it is very unusual for a Supply Day to be extended. It may have been done on some occasion, but I do not remember it.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Peter Legh: I was very glad, Sir Charles, that I succeeded in catching your eye before the points of order discussion started, because I was beginning to think that 7 o'clock might strike before I got out a single word. I was also glad to catch your eye because it gives me the opportunity to make what will now have to be a brief but none the less very earnest plea for one section of the agricultural community which I think not even the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) would be able to say has been feather-bedded.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must excuse me for one moment to point out to him that if at the interruption of this debate he is still speaking, he will be

called upon to continue his speech should the debate be resumed. Therefore, he does not need to finish at 7 o'clock, provided the Church Bill debate does not run to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Legh: I am much obliged, Sir Charles. I was saying that I want to make a plea for a section of the farming community which has not been feather-bedded. It consists of people who have not in any way benefited from the 1947 Act which the previous Minister extolled—quite rightly—at considerable length in his opening remarks. I refer, of course, to the growers of fruit and vegetables, many of whom live and work and go bankrupt in my constituency.
I am sure there will be general agreement on both sides of the Committee that the best known source of the British strawberry is South Hampshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Evidently there is not too much agreement about that. Even though farmers in this country have guaranteed prices and guaranteed markets, they consider nevertheless that that does not give them enough security. So there is much talk about the need for a long-term policy, a matter which the Minister discussed earlier this afternoon.
But the growers of fruit and vegetables have neither a long-term policy offered to them nor guaranteed prices and markets. In fact, they have no security whatever. In my view, they have every right to expect to be given some security now, five years after the 1947 Act, in view of the repeated assurances given to the industry at regular intervals since 1947 by spokesmen for the Ministry of Agriculture.
I suppose one of the, underlying themes, if not the main theme, of this debate so far has been the need to increase production and to increase efficiency in the agricultural industry and to decide, so far as it can be decided by debate, whether or not sufficient inducements are being offered to the farming world to ensure this increased production. But the problem worrying the fruit and vegetable growers of this country is not how they can increase their production but how they can afford to go on producing at their present rate, because too many of them today, at any rate in Hampshire, are losing money, going bankrupt and going out of business altogether.
Yet they are very hard-working people. Many of them are ex-Service men who, after the last war, sank what capital they had in market gardens and smallholdings. They ask only for a moderate standard of living. They certainly do not ask to be feather-bedded. I submit that the interests of these people should be given very much more consideration at the present time. During the last war they responded very nobly to the demands made upon them by the Government to increase their production. Vegetable production, other than the production of potatoes, increased from 291,500 acres to 511,900 acres. Tomato production went up from 64,000 tons to 150,000 tons a year.
Again, in January, 1948, the Ministry of Agriculture circulated to the county agricultural committees details of its four-year programme of expansion for horticulture, and in that same year the Government target for vegetable acreage was exceeded. Yet a quarter of the home production was unable to be marketed. So, inevitably in the two following years, 1949 and 1950, the acreage was below target simply because there was no confidence left in the industry.
I think it is generally agreed, both in the industry and in my right hon. Friend's Department, that the greatest problem before the growers is the ineffective regulation of imports of foreign fruit and vegetables. Excessive imports depress the market price of the home produced crops below cost, and the result is that British growers, when they are planning their cropping programmes for the following year, have no certainty that their produce will find a market.
The growers to whom I talk never regard the present system of regulating imports on a quantitative basis as satisfactory, partly because it is not a sufficiently sensitive method to respond to changes in market conditions. More particularly, they do not feel satisfied with that method of import control because they cannot be certain that the quantities of imports allowed will not be altered at the last moment.
I should like to give two recent illustrations of what I mean by alterations in quantities of imports. The value of licences for importing fruit pulp in the period ending 30th June this year was

suddenly increased from £480,000 to £895,000. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when asked about it last Tuesday, said:
The additional licences were issued, at the request of the Governments concerned, in cases where the sudden incidence of our import restrictions had interfered with the performance of outstanding contracts and caused exceptional hardship to exporting interests abroad,…
The growers of this country want to know whether that is the end of it. They have heard rumours that there are to be still more imports of fruit pulp into this country, and they say quite frankly that if that is so they will be finished. I hope the rumours are wrong. I hope, even more, that when the Joint Parliamentary. Secretary comes to reply to this Debate he will give an assurance that there will be no further imports of fruit pulp into this country this year.
The second example of changing quantities of imports is that the value of licences for importing foreign strawberries in the second half of this year has been raised quite suddenly from £65,000 to £165,000. When the President of the Board of Trade was asked about that on Tuesday he said:
The additional £100,000 for strawberries is intended to reduce the hardship which our import cuts will inflict on a locality in France which is economically dependent on a crop of strawberries grown specially for the United Kingdom market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 12–13.]
That is a very understandable reason, but it is not easy for the growers of strawberries in my constituency to understand why additional hardship should fall upon them in order to alleviate the hardship said to be going to fall upon their foreign competitors in France. It is true that in the second half of this year there are to be substantial cuts in the quantities of fruit and vegetables imported into this country, cuts which are very substantial when one compares them with the figures for the same period last year. I think we are all very grateful for these cuts, and that the growers are grateful for them.
I am bound to say that in view of these cuts I had formed the opinion that, temporarily at any rate, the outlook for the British grower would be very much rosier, but last Tuesday my hon. Friends who represent Hampshire and I received a deputation from the county growers.


They very quickly convinced us how bleak indeed is the future of the horticultural industry. What impressed me most was the explanation they gave us of how the constantly rising costs they have to face are entirely outside their own control. I should like to give the Committee a few examples of how the major costs of the Hampshire horticultural industry have increased since before he war. For instance, coal has gone up from 35s. 8d. a ton in 1939——

It being Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the considera-Hon of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business.)

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BELL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder), I have a suggestion to make to the House. As hon. Members will be aware, this debate is interpolated in the middle of a Supply Day discussion on agriculture. I do not know yet how deep are the divisions between hon. Members on this Bill, but I am sure that hon. Members interested in agriculture would be happy if by some self-denying ordinance speeches were kept short and the House could come to a rapid decision on the matter.

7.1 p.m.

Sir John Crowder (Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
As this Bill is promoted by the Church Commissioners, it is my privilege, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, to move its Third Reading. As hon. Members are aware, this Bill has been most carefully considered by a Select Committee upstairs and some very useful Amendments have been made in the Bill. The minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee are available in the Vote Office, but for the benefit of those

who have not had time to read them I will briefly outline some of the objects of the Bill which I think are welcome to all those who are interested in the well-being of the Church of England and in preserving fine old Wren churches in the City which we are all so anxious to keep.
The Church Commissioners are promoting the Bill at the request of the authorities of the Diocese of London and, in particular, the Bishop of London and the Diocesan Re-organisation Committee. The chief architect of the Bill is the Archdeacon of London, and I think the House should be very grateful to him for the time and trouble he has taken to present this Bill to the House.
Before the war the position was that there were 47 churches of the Church of England in the City. That number was admitted, even before the war, to be far too many for the residents in the City of London, and there was a scheme, as most hon. Members who are interested in these matters know, some 25 years ago which provided that no fewer than 19 of these churches, most of them built by Wren, should be demolished, but I am glad to say that that was rejected at that time by the House of Commons. Nothing further was done to produce another scheme; and then came the war during which, as hon. Members know, a tremendous amount of damage was done in the City of London, and in particular to our churches.
The object of this new scheme which is before us is to preserve as many churches as is possible and to make them useful and helpful to the Church of England generally. There is now in the City a resident population of about 5,000 people with nearly 50 churches, which gives an average of only 100 residents per church. The situation is obviously unsatisfactory, and this Bill is the result of much thought and study by those particularly concerned in the matter.
This is in the nature of an experiment in church life in the City of London, and I think and hope it will be successful. The proposals in general terms are as follows. There are 47 Church of England churches, 46 of which are at present parish churches; 24 are to remain parish churches and 16 are to be called guild churches. That accounts for 40. Three churches will not be restored because two


of them were practically wiped out by bombing during the war. They are St. Mildred, Bread Street, and St. Stephen, Coleman Street. The third, of which there is very little left, is St. Alban, Wood Street, and it is not proposed to rebuild this church. That accounts for 43.
As to the two others, one will be used as a choir school and one will be a diocesan assembly hall. That accounts for 45. There are as yet no proposals for dealing with the other two because their future has not as yet been determined. The Church Commissioners and all those responsible for this Bill are anxious to retain as many of these City churches as is possible. They think that there should be some provision made for the very large day-time population of the City of London. I do not think anybody has been able to get any really accurate figures of the number of the day-time workers in the City, but they vary between 310,000 and 472,000, and therefore we suggest that there are about 400,000 daily workers in the City who are not residents.
The proposals in this Bill are novel in that, generally speaking, it has been the duty of the Church to provide for the spiritual needs of persons resident in a particular area. That is the parish system which we all recognise and understand. The scheme put forward in this Bill puts a special responsibility on the minister or the vicar appointed to these Guild churches for those who work in the neighbourhood of the City of London but do not live there.
I shall not discuss the question of how the electoral roll is to be formed, as this was debated fully by the members of the Select Committee and certain alterations by way of amendments were made, and no doubt members of the Select Committee will like to tell the House what these changes were. I do not propose also, especially in view of what Mr. Speaker has said, to go through the Bill Clause by Clause, because the Select Committee went into them all very fully and there were not very many important amendments made, although some of them, as I have already said, are very useful.
To summarise, there are four distinct but related purposes which it is sought to achieve by this Bill and which can only be done with the authority of Parliament. One is to retain and restore

most of the Wren churches in the City, not only for their architectural interest but as living centres of worship. There being, however, little justification for rebuilding and keeping many of these churches as parish churches, now that the resident population of the City is so small, the Bill proposes a new use for otherwise redundant churches.
Secondly, it is sought to make special provision, for the first time, for spiritual ministrations to the vast non-resident day-time population of the City by means of guild churches, and clergy specially selected to serve them. To make their ministrations more effective, these clergy, who will have an independent and autonomous status, will be freed from parochial responsibilities.
The third purpose is to strengthen the links which already exist between the religious and civic life of the City of London. With the good will concurrence and agreement of the civic authorities, this will be accomplished by the creation of an official church for the Corporation—St. Lawrence Jewry—and by the designation of certain churches—ward churches—as the official churches of the various wards in the City.
Fourthly—and this, I think, is the most important of all—it is proposed to provide posts and centres for clergy possessing specialised qualifications in scholarship, preaching and the like so that their particular gifts will become available for the benefit of the Church as a whole. I do not think there are any opponents to the Bill. Certainly no notices of opposition have been deposited in the House against it.
In conclusion, I should like to quote some words used by the Bishop of London. He said:
It is my wish and hope that the City may become a great ecclesiastical laboratory in which new methods of ministry, new spiritual experiments and new pastoral techniques may be tried out for the benefit of the whole church.
It is with these broad objects in view that I move the Third Reading of this Bill.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to commend this Bill to the House on Third Reading because, as the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder) has said, no opposition has been lodged to it. On the contrary, it is


warmly supported in all quarters. Certainly all the members of the Select Committee—and, I think, all hon. Members on this side of the House—very much hope that this plan, which has been put forward by the diocesan authorities in London, will prove to be a happy solution of this old and vexed question of the City churches.
I think the scheme is an admirable one. It will enable the City churches, which are of very considerable architectural value to the nation, to be preserved. I particularly welcome the assurance given by the Archdeacon of London that none of these so-called guild churches will be demolished. The arrangement which has been made for having these guild churches outside the parochial system is a very useful experiment, and one from which we all hope that the Church of England will derive considerable benefit. After all, the City and its spiritual requirements are quite unique.
It is very desirable that these guild churches should be relieved from what is a quite unnecessary obligation for saying Divine Service on Sunday. It is desirable that there should be an attempt to minister to the daytime, weekday working population or to those people who desire such ministration. I hope that the Church authorities will use the opportunities thus provided to do something to relieve the very serious manpower problem with which the Church is faced.
As I understand it, it is intended that persons with specialist qualifications should be selected as vicars of these guild churches, and that the people so selected will differ from all the other incumbents in the Church of England in the sense that they will not have a freehold for life but will be appointed merely for a term of years. I hope that it will be possible for those thus appointed to these guild churches not merely to serve the guild churches during the week but also to lend assistance outside the City, in parishes where a great many clergymen are today trying to serve very large parishes and are notoriously overburdened with work.
With those few words—particularly in view of your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we should not unduly prolong this debate—I commend this Bill to the House.

7.13 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: Before asking for the indulgence of the House for a very few moments I should like to associate myself with the appreciation that my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner has expressed of the services of the Archdeacon of London. The Archdeacon appeared before the Select Committee and I am sure I can speak for every member of that Committee in saying that the clarity and sincerity of his explanations, and the manner in which he met such criticisms as were made, earned not only our admiration but our gratitude.
I am sure the House will allow me, as the Member for the City of London, to say that not only is this Measure an agreed and, indeed, a welcome one, but that it is one which is very sincerely desired by all those great established institutions in the City to whom it makes a peculiar appeal and in whose tradition the whole scheme is clearly conceived.
My hon. Friend has already very fully explained the details of the Measure, and he has put clearly to the House its four main purposes. I should like to say two or three words about three of those purposes. The intention of these guild churches is not to provide the normal service of an ordinary parish church, but to give the opportunity for what is really an experiment, in providing religious Christian education and opportunities for Christian worship and Christian communion for the hundreds and thousands of men and women who daily come into the City to earn their bread.
Although I have been associated with the City for many years, until I made some inquiries in connection with this Bill I certainly did not realise—and I think very few people do realise—how many of these men and women, young and old, from time to time—some of them regularly and some perhaps only spasmodically—desire to seek peace and tranquility at the middle of the day, away from the hubbub, the turmoil and the worries of their daily life, by contemplating quietly some of those spiritual values which are in these days so often obscured or completely hidden.
I am quite certain that these Guild churches will meet a very real need. I am certain, too, that every Member of


this House and, indeed, every citizen, must feel gratitude and thankfulness that in these material days there are still so many who seek something higher and more satisfying than they get in the ordinary way.
The second point is the opportunity that these new churches will give for clergy who, while no doubt possessing great spiritual gifts, are not perhaps best suited to the ordinary day-to-day work of the parish priest. I am quite certain that there are many men who have a great mission and a great deal of good to give to the world who will find, in the peculiar circumstances and the work of these new churches, an opportunity which has so far missed them.
I should like to echo what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said a moment ago—that these clergy should also be given spare time in which they will be able to help in parishes and churches outside the City where there is need for them and where they can do so much good.
But, from my point of view the most important point of all is the strengthening of the link between the spiritual and civic life of the City. I think it is entirely appropriate that these churches should be attached to wards of the ancient City; that one of them should become the freehold church of the City Corporation itself and that, as I hope, they will become more and more associated with those great City institutions—the City companies and the like—whose history the churches are commemorating in their own title.
I think it is a peculiarly happy choice that they should be called the guild churches, because it is a reminder of the fact that the great City guilds—those historic institutions which have now become the great City companies—began fundamentally on a religious basis. The atmosphere in which they were formed was a religious one and it was primarily for spiritual reasons that they were brought into existence. I think it is a most happy conception that these churches should be called Guild churches.
This is an opportunity for a great experiment in evangelism—in the propagating of Christian doctrine and the Christian way of life. It is entirely in the tradition of the City of London that an experiment of this kind should begin

there. There is certainly no field in which the experiment can more fittingly be tried than the City of London itself which, in its traditions, embodies—and in its day-to-day work actually uses—those fundamental spiritual truths, those spiritual standards of value, which we are so gravely in danger of losing but which, after all, were the basis on which the greatness of Britain's past was built and are, in the view of many of us, the only ground on which our future can rise.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Although responsibility does not rest with us, we should all want to express concern that some of our colleagues should prefer to concentrate upon things of the earth than to join us here in discussing these more spiritual matters. I shall do my best to comply with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we should be brief in discussing this very important matter.
I am pleased for a number of reasons that we are discussing it. When we have an established Church it is good that hon. Members in all parts of the House should take an interest in the doings of that Church and that they are prepared to give the Church whatever help they can when subjects of this character come for discussion before us. On at least two occasions in the last few years we have discussed ecclesiastical re-organisation Measures, not always to the complete satisfaction of all of us.
Some of the things which have been said in the present debate have been helpful to the Church. The discussion on the Bill in the Select Committee must have been of very considerable benefit to the Church. Our colleagues who took part on that Committee, most of whom I see are here, brought to their task great knowledge of the subject and a lively imagination which must have made a great impression on the Church authorities responsible for this Measure.
The second reason I am glad is that we should express our gratitude to the Church for a most generous gesture on its part in attempting to bring the administration of the Church into line with modern thought and in a way which does not involve demolition of City churches on the scale which has been suggested in the past. As the hon. Member for Finchley (Sir J. Crowder) reminded us,


when there was a previous scheme 25 years ago which would have involved the destruction of a number of churches, this House very wisely rejected that scheme.
The City has suffered very severely in that way. Between 1781 and 1940, I think 19 of the City churches were destroyed, all of them with some claim to be saved, some for their beauty, some for historical associations and some merely for the beauty of the names which adorned them. The last City church to be demolished went as recently as 12 years ago. In these days we cannot allow that sort of thing to continue.
I was very glad that the "News Chronicle" reminded us today, in an article entitled "Stupidity Street," that
our heirlooms go, piece by piece and we accept each loss with the dull apathy of fatalism.
That is what the Church of England has decided is not to happen in the City of London. That is particularly good, at a time when museums and art galleries have been closed and when we have discharged from Government service artists and specialists whose duty was the protection of ancient monuments. The Church is setting us an example in this respect. That is another reason I particularly commend the Bill to my hon. Friends.
There are two points I would like to put to the hon. Gentleman responsible for the Measure. I gathered from the discussions on the Select Committee that the ecclesiastical authorities are retaining power to demolish churches in the future without reference to this House. Where there is a need for designating new churches as Guild churches, would the proposals have to come before this House for approval? If that is the case, it would be better to make provision in this Measure for designating the churches and to leave out the proposals for demolition, in order that future proposals for demolition would have to come here for approval. The Church authorities should realise that if any proposals of that kind came before this House, it is probable that the House would refuse permission for any demolition.
I hope that the Church authorities will be imaginative in the way they allocate Guild churches. It is splendid that the Chapel-of-Ease in St. Benet's, Paul's

Wharf should be used especially by the Welsh congregation in the City of London. I should have thought it possible to have other Guild churches allocated to parts of the British Commonwealth. That would be in the best tradition of the City of London. The Northern Irish inhabitants of the City of London may from to time be in need of spiritual help which could be given in that way.
I hope that the Church will bear in mind the suggestions made by the Select Committee, in particular that attention should be given to the needs of various religious orders and that some approach should be made to other denominations which are ill represented in the City by places of worship, and have little chance of acquiring any. This is an excellent Measure, and I commend it very seriously to my hon. Friends.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. C. H. Gage: In accordance with custom, I should disclose my interest in this matter, because I am the Official Principal to the Archdeacon of London. It is rather a negative interest, because the effect of the Bill upon me, so far as I can see, is to reduce the fees that I obtain from my office. The only other matter which affected me, and which I believe was in the Bill at one time, was that I should advise the Archdeacon in regard to certain matters. It has now very properly been taken from the Bill.
I think the whole House will be glad to receive this Measure. It is a great tribute to the industry and idealism of the Bishop of London and the Archdeacon of London that the Bill comes before us virtually unopposed. It is very rare that that can be said of ecclesiastical Measures that come before us. Normally, they arouse the fiercest feelings on both sides.
Perhaps I may deal with the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) expressed the view—and we are all in sympathy with the idea—that the clergy who will be assigned to the Guild churches should be used outside them in the parish churches of London and in other places. I can readily give him the assurance that that is the purpose. Primarily, the duty of these clergy will be to minister to the day-time population of the City of London. They have been freed from the


obligation which applies to incumbents of parishes of reading matins and vespers on Sundays, and they will be able to assist,, and it is hoped, and indeed is fairly certain, that they will assist, outside. Their duty is not only to the people who come into London day by day but to London and to the Church as a whole.
As to the demolition of churches, a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), it is not expected or thought, of course, that any of these guild churches should ever be demolished. Indeed the whole purpose of this Bill is to retain these beautiful and historic churches in a way in which they will best serve the needs of the City. Therefore, it is not visualised by anyone that a time will come when it will be required or desired that any of the guild churches or parish churches that remain should be demolished.
There is the additional safeguard that a church cannot be demolished unless the matter comes before this House. I understand that a Measure would have to be laid on the Table of this House and that it could be prayed against in the ordinary way, so there is that additional safeguard. I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to satisfy the hon. Member.
As regards the other matter he raised—the use of these churches by other denominations—many people of other denominations now use them, and it is hoped that they will continue to do so. No bar or difficulty will be placed in their way should they desire to do so. As for, as it were, giving a church completely to another denomination, there has never been any request by any other denomination for such a church. I am certain that hon. Members will agree that it was no duty of the authorities of the

Church of England to offer such a church if there was no request for it.
That is the position, and it is hoped and believed that many people of other denominations will use these churches, as they have done up to now, because many of the churches are functioning, although the Bill has not yet been passed, more or less as they will function under the terms of the Bill. That has been so for some time; they have been used, and it is hoped they will continue to be used.
I need only say that this Bill marks a great and novel experiment in Church matters. It is the first departure in a thousand years from the parish system, and these churches, which will in other respects be similar to parish churches, will have congregations which will not have, so to speak, a residential qualification. In that respect it is, as my hon. Friend said, very fitting that this should be done in the City of London, with its enormous day-time population. These churches will become what one might call week-day churches in order to benefit and help those people who come in to work day by day in this great City.
In achieving that, I feel that a solution has been arrived at of the problem that has always existed in the City, where there were obviously too many parish churches for the resident population and yet nobody wanted to see any of those churches disappear. I believe that in this Bill we have found a solution to that problem. I think it is a great solution, and that it will redound to the greater glory both of London and the Church, and I unhesitatingly commend it to the House.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Agriculture for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

Civil Estimates, 1952–53



£


Class VI., Vote 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
10


Class VI., Vote 9, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)
10


Total
20

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Legh: When the debate was interrupted, I was proceeding to give the Committee some figures to show how the costs of production of horticultural produce in the county of Hampshire had gone up since before the war. I emphasise that these are figures obtaining in the county of Hampshire.
Coal has increased in price from 35s. 8d. per ton in 1939 to 113s. 5d. per ton in 1951–52. Coke has gone up from——

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I inquire where the Minister is?

Mr. Legh: Coke has gone up from 25s. 6d. per ton in 1939 to 140s. 4d. per ton in 1951–52.
Ordinary artificial fertilisers have increased in price from £10 per ton in 1939 to no less than £70 to £80 per ton this year, and the best artificials have gone up from £23 per ton before the war to £90 this year. Labour costs have also increased. The wages of a labourer have risen from 40s. per week to 112s. 6d. per week, and those of a charge hand from 55s. per week to 122s. 6d. per week. Tissue for packing has risen from 2s. 9d. per ream in 1939 to 21s. this year, and cord for packing has increased in price from 38s. per cwt. in 1939 to 235s. this year.
Exactly how this increased incidence of costs affects the industry I can best illustrate by saying that in 1939 the cost of

producing broccoli in Hampshire was £26 0s. 6d. per acre; this year it is no less than £74 16s. 6d. per acre. That is one side of the picture. The other side is that at the beginning of this week Hampshire growers were getting for their best quality strawberries, which are the best strawberries in these islands, 1s. 6d. per lb. That represents a dead loss to them.
I was told that, so far as lower-grade quality strawberries are concerned, the minimum economic price is £110 per ton; that is to say that it does not pay the growers to pick the strawberries for a lower price than that. I was also told that last Tuesday night there would be a meeting in South Hampshire between the growers there and representatives of the manufacturers to agree on what price the lower-grade quality strawberries would be sold for making into jam. My information was that, because of the abundance of imported strawberries, the growers would have to accept a price lower than £110 per ton.
The only solution to this problem which the trade thinks would be of any advantage is an upward revision of tariffs. I believe that the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is so. When one talks about an upward revision of tariffs against imported horticultural products one immediately raises the whole issue of the future of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I know what a thorny problem that is—what the difficulties are. I know, too, that the General Agreement is advantageous as well as disadvantageous even to the horticultural industry. However, I am certain—and I know that the trade is certain—that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
I would say to the President of the Board of Trade, if he were here, that the difficulties of resolving the problem presented by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will not become easier by delaying the date on which a decision is finally made. Last Tuesday the President of the Board of Trade said, in answer to a Question, that he did not expect that he would be able to make a further statement about the future of the General Agreement before the Summer Recess.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that what the hon. Gentleman is now discussing would involve legislation.

Mr. Legh: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I was merely going to say that that answer given by the President of the Board of Trade can only be very disappointing to the growers of fruit and vegetables in this country, because they are now already worried about next year's cropping programme.
A few days ago I had a letter—a very heartbreaking letter—from a grower in my constituency. It is typical of many letters I receive, and I should like to read to the Committee a few sentences from it. My constituent says:
To prepare for increased cropping next year I must put in a large amount of capital. I am extremely hesitant to do this because of the steeply rising costs and complete absence of any encouragement regarding the control of imports. I really do feel that it may not be realised"——

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is using this as an illustration of his plea, which would involve legislation. That cannot be
discussed.

Mr. Legh: I was hoping to be able to quote from this letter in order to illustrate to the Committee the difficulties of one of the horticulturists in my constituency——

The Deputy-Chairman: The difficulties could not be met unless there were additonal legislation.

Mr. Legh: I will leave that point. Perhaps I may go on to read one or two other sentences from my constituent's letter, which, I hope, will not offend against your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris. He goes on:
I really do feel that it may not be realised in Government circles how this industry is bleeding. I meet small men with even less reserves than I have, and, believe me, they regard things as grim. I only ask—and this most earnestly—that some guidance may be given. If only we were told when we may expect the silence to be broken one way or the other, and possibly also whether any protection is to be expected at all. All I ask is a reasonable chance of taking out of the place per year as much as I pay any one adult.
I am quite certain that the Minister of Agriculture is very familiar with the problems of the horticultural industry, and I am equally certain that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, will be sympathetic towards the

predicament of the industry. I do appeal to him to use all his influence to convince his colleagues in the Cabinet that, so far as the horticultural industry is concerned, it is most vitally urgent that something should be done to make the control of imports more effective, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the Committee an assurance that that will be done.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the sphere with which he dealt. I particularly want to draw the Minister's attention tonight to a very important publication which I have received today. It is called "Rural Electrification and the Farming Community in Wales," and it is written by Miss Dorothy Hooper, M.A. This document is published by the Department of Agricultural Economics of the University of Wales at Aberystwyth. I do not need to remind the Minister of the important contribution that Aberystwyth University College has made to British agriculture.
Let me quote from the foreword to this document. It goes:
Under modern conditions of farming, farms lacking such a supply"—?
that is, a supply of electricity—
are not sufficiently equipped for production. In this respect the importance of this service ranks second only to that of an adequate supply of water. It has a bearing also on the labour problem, as the availability of electric power reduces materially the time required for performing many of the routine farming processes, and further makes possible the introduction of the most up to date and efficient methods.
It goes on:
Finally, it is an accepted fact that the absence of amenities, of which electricity is one, has been an important factor in the depopulation of the countryside, and the future of agriculture depends a great deal on giving the rural dweller that share of urban amenities to which he has a moral right.
The position in Wales in this respect, as the Minister knows, is very far from satisfactory; but the position in my own constituency of Anglesey is nothing short of critical. If the farmers of Anglesey and the farmers of other Welsh counties are to compete on equal terms with their more fortunate brethren in the


wealthier parts of the south of England and of East Anglia, then rural electrification in Wales must be given top priority.
Quite reasonable progress has been made in rural electrification since electricity was nationalised in April, 1948, but it seems that far more progress has been made in connecting farms with electricity in England than in Wales, and it appears to me that in Wales, with a high percentage of marginal land, with our comparatively small farming units, with the comparative poverty—I think that this is an important point, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) is not here to hear what I have to say—the comparative poverty of Welsh farmers, and our lack of water, and, finally, our lack of electricity, Welsh farmers are fighting an uphill fight, and that they are performing wonders in that process.
To bring this home to the Minister, let me quote some figures. I think they are new figures which he will not have seen before. I shall confine myself to Anglesey, although I should say that the position with regard to rural electrification is almost as bad in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones). But I speak of Anglesey now.
There are 115 farms with electricity, and that is 3·5 per cent. of the total number in the island. There are 3,129 farms, or 96·5 per cent., without electricity. Again, of the 115 farms which are connected, 42, or 1·3 per cent, get electricity from a public source, and 73, or 2·2 per cent., from a private supply. That shows that Anglesey is the county with the lowest percentage of farms in the whole of Wales—and, I think, in the whole of England and Wales—with a public supply of electricity—that is, 1·3 per cent. This is a most grave disclosure.
The county in Wales with the highest number of farms connected with electricity is Glamorgan, 30 per cent. of whose farms are so supplied. This quite clearly discloses, for the first time I think, the really serious position which exists in Anglesey and in the Welsh counties. I, personally, am grateful to Miss Hooper

for rendering this service. I hope that the Minister will obtain this document and give it very careful studv and consideration, because it has an important bearing on the efficiency of the Welsh farming industry and its potential for the future.
There is one other matter of paramount importance which I wish to mention. I do not know whether the Government fully appreciate the immense difficulties now overtaking the small farmer—the man, that is, with a farm of fewer than 100 acres. Taking 80 acres as the average holding in Great Britain, we must constantly bear in mind that it is the small farmer, not the big farmer —to whom, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury refers— who is the backbone of British agriculture. It is upon him that we must ultimately depend for increased production.
The crisis into which the average farmer is now running is being created by the Government's dear money policy and by the restrictions on credit. This is the fundamental difficulty which confronts the farming community today. In paragraph (d)at the top of page 6 of the White Paper we read:
The sharp drop in net income in 1950–51, aggravated by rising costs, and followed by some measure of restraint applied to credit advances by bankers, created a fairly widespread temporary shortage of ready-money amongst farmers. The Government do not hold this view that credit difficulties are properly to be solved by increases in prices.
In the footnote at the bottom of page 6 the Chancellor's statement of 10th March is quoted, in which he said, in effect, that banks in applying their advances policy should give full weight to the importance of agricultural production. Unfortunately the White Paper does not suggest how credit difficulties should be solved. These restrictions, coupled with the increased bank rate, make it almost impossible for the small farmer today to derive the maximum benefit from increased prices.
Furthermore, it is extremely doubtful whether banks will release money, even at 5½ per cent., on stock alone without a very sound additional security. In this context, I am thinking of the tenant farmer or the owner-occupier who happens to have a mortgage on his property. Generally, the tenant farmer and the owner-occupier with a mortgage will have


a little more than their stock and their implements to offer the bank as security.
In the policies of the banks there is a marked lack of uniformity as between different parts of the country. Even in the same county one bank manager approached by a farmer will use a far wider discretion than another bank manager. This does not make for a united and concerted effort by the small farmers, anxious though they may be to play their part in our national recovery.
Many cases could be quoted of industrious farmers—I am speaking now of the small farmers in Anglesey and north-west Wales—who badly require capital for the purpose of expansion, but who are not possessed of the sort of security acceptable to the banks. The Price Review will not benefit these farmers, because to get increased prices there must be increased output, and to ensure increased output there must be available the ready-money to spend on expansion.
Take, for example, the farmer who desires to increase on sheep. He would buy the ewes this September and would then have to wait until the following summer—the following August or September, for the return of his money and his profit, but unless he can borrow the money from the bank this September he will not be able to carry out his plans. This failure—and this is the crux of the matter—on the part of countless farmers throughout the country can and will have a disastrous effect upon our national production figures. I do not wish to over-simplify the position, but I think that is the vital problem in agriculture which confronts the Minister and the Government today.
If the Government want to achieve their target of increased production they must, in my submission, do two important things, and do them now. First, they must relax restrictions on credit to farmers, subject of course, to the normal precautions that any bank would take; and secondly, they must also lower the interest rate, because even if a small farmer is fortunate enough to be able to borrow, the present rate of interest is crippling to him. In the interests of the nation, I hope that the Minister and the Government will give these matters their most urgent and careful attention.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. J. B, Godber: I hope the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail on the points he made. I have every sympathy with a certain amount of what he said, particularly with regard to rural electrification. I do not think we can have too much of that. In my own division there is a large number of very scattered fen farms, many of which are without electricity, which has a very deterrent effect on food production. I am certain that my right hon. and gallant Friend does bear that in mind, but I hope that it will be possible to do something more to help these people.
At the outset of this my first intervention in agricultural matters to any extent, perhaps I should declare an interest. I do not think it is customary to do so in agricultural debates, but I do not see why it should not be as relevant for a farmer to declare his interest as for the member of any other profession. I am a farmer, and as I may be referring incidentally to horticulture, I should say that I am also a member of the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board.
I should be happier if the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) were in his place, because although I do not intend to follow him in any detail, there are one or two small comments I should like to make of some of his remarks. When listening to him, I could not help feeling that perhaps there was something a little out of the ordinary in his flamboyant outpourings against the farming community. I almost felt that he was suffering from that foot-and-mouth disease of which we have heard so much recently. Indeed, looking at the faces of some of his hon. Friends when he was speaking, I thought that some of them would subscribe very readily to the slaughter policy in his case. However, I shall not pursue that too far.
One point he made to which attention needs to be called was when he tried to play off the housewife against the farmer to an extent which I thought was wholly unjustifiable, and I take one figure to show how totally untrue is his method of putting it, and how completely wrong is the impression that he gives when he says that the farmer is holding up the housewife to ransom. After all, we must view this as though for the whole world. We


cannot view it within the narrow aspect of our own economy because so much of our food has to be imported.
It is, therefore, relevant to remember that the British farmer is paid for his wheat a price substantially under the world wheat agreement price and enormously under the world's free market price. The effect of this, in terms of bread, is that every 3½ lb. loaf made from dollar wheat purchased at wheat agreement prices would cost the nation nearly 2d. a loaf more than if it were made from British wheat. That surely must have some relevance to what the hon. Member was saying. If a similar loaf were to be made from wheat at the present world free market price, it would cost just over 3¾d. more than a loaf made from British wheat. That, I think, disposes of his type of argument.

Mr. Coldrick: In fairness to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), would the hon. Member give the price paid to the British farmer for meat compared with the price paid to the country from which we import it? It is not fair to take one particular article.

Mr. Godber: That is a fair question. I have not the figures with me on that particular point, but the hon. Gentleman will agree, I think, that bread is one of the staple foods. I agree with him that the figure for meat is certainly not so favourable. I think, however, that bread is such an important staple food that it is quite relevant to refer to it in this connection. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable to follow the hon. Member for Wednesbury further in his remarks, because I feel that he has introduced into what was otherwise an objective debate a totally wrong approach. I would prefer to make one or two constructive points on the more general issues.
Firstly, I am concerned, as I have said on previous occasions in the House, with the need for a greater labour force if we are to get the benefit of a greater tillage acreage. We have seen in the White Paper that there is a fall of one million acres of tillage, but that steps have been taken to rectify that, and we understand that the tillage acreage is now going up once more. It is no use, however, putting the tillage acreage up if we have not the labour to utilise it. That is fundamental. I believe that the tillage acreage

went down largely because of the lack of labour. I know the farming community, and I know that in many cases when the farmer has not the labour he will be forced to take the course of least resistance and put the land back to grass.
If we are to get a greater tillage acreage and the increased food that is necessary, we must have a larger labour force. I have suggested on previous occasions ways in which that could be achieved. I believe that it would be policy to fill the hostels in the countryside once more. These hostels, which housed many workers during the war and immediately after the war, are now, in many cases, standing empty.
I believe also that it would be advisable to start once more the Women's Land Army, which did such good work in the past. I am thinking particularly at the moment about the unemployment in the textile industry. There are many young women who, I think, would be glad of an opportunity of coming forward and doing useful work for agriculture. It is only by making use of that kind of extra labour that we can hope, as a short-term policy, to get sufficient people on to the land. The fundamental reason for the lack of manpower on the land is the shortage of houses in the countryside. I think that question is being tackled, but it will take some time to bring about results. That is why I say that, as an interim measure, the hostels should be refilled if we are to get the benefits from our larger tillage acreage.
I should like to say a word on a subject which several hon. Members have touched upon. That is the degree of efficiency of different types of farmers. The A farmer is the best in the world. I think that there is little doubt that that is so. Coming from a division in Lincolnshire noted for its farming, I can speak with some knowledge of the very high type of farming and the very heavy production that can be produced from a really first-class farm.
Unfortunately, even in my own constituency, and more so in the country as a whole, the quantity of A farmers is not as great as we would like to see. There are a large number of farmers who come into the category of B farmers. They are in an overwhelmingly large majority in the country as a whole. As regards C farmers, they are happily in a very small


minority, and there is provision to deal with them under the 1947 Act.
With regard to the A farmer it should not be forgotten that they are a tremendous asset, not only for what they produce, which is a very substantial contribution, but because they are the men whom the hon. Member for Wednesbury talked about when speaking of large profits. Why should men really skilful and doing something well in one industry be subject to derogation like that? Men successful in other businesses and industries who make substantial sums of money do not have scorn poured upon them. There is no reason why this small minority of farmers should not make substantial profits, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look after them in the long run. What is important is that they are producing more food per acre, and that is what really matters at the present time.
With regard to the C farmers, as I have said, there is provision for them to be dealt with. They can be put under supervision. As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister, he is looking into this whole position with a view to speeding up the decisions that are taken. What is likely to happen so often after a farmer has been put under supervision, if it should come to the need that he has to be dispossessed, and if the A.E.C. wish for him to be dispossessed is that the Agricultural Land Tribunal has the last word, and in many cases in which the A.E.C. have wanted to have a man evicted they have found that the Land Tribunal have shied away from the harsh necessity of dispossessing him, and so they have taken away the strength of the A.E.C.
If this is to be tightened up, I say that the Land Tribunals have to be looked at closely. That is a fundamental point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear it in mind when he is going into these matters. The rest of the problem boils down to the question of the B farmers who are in the very large majority. These men have been farming up to what has until recently been considered a high standard. The trouble with the B farmer is that he has not moved quite with the times and has not taken full advantage of the improved processes which have come to light in the last 10 or 15 years. These are the

people who have to be persuaded to make greater use of newer methods—better machinery, heavier yielding strains of different varieties of corn, freer use of fertilisers—and encouraged to set themselves higher targets and not be satisfied with the yields to which they have been accustomed.
These are the men through whom, because of their large number and the large acreage which they farm, should come the real increase in production, and it can only come if they make greater use of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. They have to be encouraged to make far greater use of that body and to set themselves higher targets. They have to realise that more is expected of them. That is where the N.F.U. can be of help in instilling into them a feeling that they can and must do better.
With regard to the Agricultural Advisory Service, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) mentioned one or two alternatives which could be made in the organisation. I, too, feel that there is room for some improvement. I certainly do not agree with the provisions of the Ryan Report. Its conclusions were not greatly to the benefit of the industry, and I hope that the Report will not be implemented.
That does not mean that there is no need for some reorganisation. I favour the return of the advisory service to the county councils. I should like to see reconstituted the agricultural committees of county councils which existed before the war, and the N.A.A.S. brought under them. They could continue in the same way as the present smallholdings committees, controlling the smallholdings and, more important still, the farm institutes.
At present there is no direct liaison between the farm institutes and the N.A.A.S., which is a fundamental weakness. The farm institutes are controlled by the agricultural education committees of the county councils, which are subcommittees of the education committees and have no direct association with the agricultural industry, which is wrong. We must provide a close link between the N.A.A.S. and the farm institutes if we are to get the best results and if the ex-students of the institutes are to be imbued with the idea of consulting the N.A.A.S. at every point. I hope it will be possible for something to be done on these lines.
I have a suggestion about security of tenure which, I hope, will commend itself. It has been said that there is too much security of tenure for the tenant under the 1947 Act. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury said that. I do not draw the same conclusions as he did, but I do feel that there may be too much security of tenure at present.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Godber: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support. The Act has given great security to the tenant farmer—at one time he had insufficient security—and it enables him to plan ahead, which is valuable, but at the same time it has removed a check on inefficiency. In the past the landlord could utter a word of warning which usually had the desired result, but at present there is no possibility whatever of getting a bad tenant out, and it is of little use any landlord attempting to do anything in that way.
I have no wish to put tenants at a disadvantage, but it would be well—it would be to their long-term benefit—if the security of tenure given under the 1947 Act were restricted to one class of farmer only, the A farmer. That would have a very real effect on production. It would give other farmers an incentive to qualify as A farmers. There would be a definite incentive to become an A fanner if that gave security, and the A farmer would be entitled to such security. That is one way in which we could improve the standard of the B farm. Every farmer would have the right to full protection provided that his standard of farming justified it. In our present straitened circumstances, the imposition of a standard such as that would not be, and should not be, resented by our farming community.
There is also the question of tenant fanners who are getting on in years and would like to retire. Often their standard of farming has declined with their energies as they approach retiring age. Many such men are unable to retire because they cannot get other accommodation. Their job is linked with their home and they cannot get another house, and so they take the only way out, which is to continue to farm at an ever-decreasing standard. There is real justification for special housing provision for such men if they are willing to get out.

Mr. P. Wells: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same principle to the agricultural labourer who is evicted from a tied cottage when he leaves the job?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I think' so. As I said earlier, I believe the solution is to build more houses in the countryside. I was looking at this with a view, not to assisting the man but to helping the nation. If he can encourage the man who is not a good farmer to go out so that his place can be taken by an energetic young man, the country as a whole will benefit.
One of the brightest aspects about agriculture at present is the large number of young men who are products of universities and the farm institutes who want farms and wish to use the latest scientific knowledge. We must do all we can to encourage them, because they will produce increased quantities of food if they can get farms.
The subject of horticulture has already been dealt at some length by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh). I wish to call attention to the vitally important subject of horticultural marketing. It is generally acceded that some improvement is required. A number of committees have considered the subject in the last few years, but none of them has proposed a sensible or coherent scheme.
The way to tackle the problem is for the Government to give assistance to producer co-operative marketing centres in the main producing areas. We need to get uniform grading and packing in those centres before the produce is sent to the industrial markets. The real trouble has been lack of uniformity, and if we can get uniformity we shall have done much to solve the problem of horticultural marketing. It would be worth while for the Government to give direct assistance to the promotion of such grading centres all over the country, for it would be of benefit not only to the producer but, in the long run, to the consumer.
Horticulture requires to be helped politically. The 1947 Act promised that horticulture would receive a fair deal, but nothing whatsoever has been done to implement that promise, and it is high time the horticultural producer got a fair crack of the whip. The subject of tariffs has been ruled out of order, but I hope we may have an opportunity of discussing them later, for undoubtedly the adjust-


ment of tariff barriers is one way in which we can give the industry real help.
In the last two years we have seen a definite fall in the standard of fanning production, but I believe that the steps already taken by my right hon. and gallant Friend have arrested the decline and that there is now an improvement. If he will only go ahead boldly and give a strong lead to the agricultural committees in the counties and show that he not only wants to increase production but will see that he gets it, he will find a following throughout the country and will get the extra food, which is so vitally needed.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: I am pleased to have caught your eye, Sir Charles, but, in fairness to other hon. Members, I hope to confine my remarks to a period of 10 minutes. I represent a constituency which is predominantly hill farming. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, could suggest that those people live luxuriously. We have heard it claimed this evening that farmers are too well cared for, and that they thrive on subsidies. I do not subscribe to that view. I am sure of one thing, that anyone with an intimate knowledge of constituencies like Merioneth will know that every halfpenny is well earned and well deserved.
We must take a realistic view of the prevailing economic circumstances, and I think everyone will agree that farming must never again be neglected in this country and be brought to the state we found it in during pre-war days. Our whole economy depends on flourishing farmlands. What are the facts? In 1951 we imported £154 million of wheat and wheat products, £33 million of barley, £90 million of butter, £40 million of cheese and £213 million of meat and meat products. A great deal of that had to be paid for in currency other than sterling. Therefore, if we hope to retain our present standard of living, we must do all we can to encourage those people who are producing our food on our own land.
According to the declared policy of the Government, to quote from the White Paper—
The Government will take all possible steps to encourage and where necessary require that full productive use is made of the land.
I want to dwell on the word "encourage." That statement can mean one thing in a county like Cheshire, for instance, and

quite another thing in a county like Merioneth. In order to encourage full production by hill farmers something even more important than subsidies is necessary.
I am glad, therefore, to have this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Minister the state of the unclassified roads which we find in purely agricultural and rural areas. In Merionethshire we have 300 miles of third-class roads and 300 miles of unclassified roads. How can we expect the Merionethshire County Council, with a penny rate which produces no more than £550, to provide for these roads? They could only do so by increasing the rates exorbitantly.
With your permission, Sir Charles, I want to quote from a letter which I received only this week from the Clerk of the Urban District Council of Towyn. We all know Towyn as an exceptionally delightful place in which to spend a holiday, and I can recommend it to the House. However, Towyn has its problems and here is one of them:
My Council's area, as you may know, contains a very large agricultural area, in fact the agricultural area covers by far the greater part of the Urban District. This agricultural area is served by many miles of unclassified roads for which my Council is responsible, but it finds the burden of undertaking necessary maintenance to be too heavy for its resources especially when added to the miles of similar unclassified roads serving the most populous and urban parts of the Urban District. The limited resources of the Urban District with its product of a 1d. rate amounting to only just over £70 and the large mileage involved is such that the roads have in the past been of necessity somewhat neglected with the result that the task now facing them to put these roads into some shape is almost impossible.
That is the problem of the local authorities in counties like Merioneth. In summing up tonight, I hope that the Government spokesman will pay attention to this problem. The curious thing is this, that the two bodies who are poaching on our agricultural land are provided with excellent roads. I am referring to the War Department and the Forestry Commission. I do not grudge them their good roads, but I ask this question, why the difference? Indeed, it is a somewhat profound and sad commentary on our civilisation that the roads to warfare are wide and even and that the roads to peace are narrow and rough.
Now 50 per cent, of the Merionethshire highland farmers have embarked on schemes of improvement under the pro-


visions of the Hill Faming Act and the cost is £500,000. That Act brought great credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and it is no doubt his monument. Yet that can be brought to nought if these people are unable to transport their products and their requisites to and from the farms.
I will touch for a moment on the problem of afforestation in counties like Merioneth. Today great destruction is caused to food production because of the present method of planting. In my opinion the trees should be planted, not according to the present system, but on the shelter belt system; not on the continental pattern which we have today in Merionethshire, where hundreds of acres of good agricultural land are covered by these trees.
The problem of the hill farmer is that he has three types of land; the land in the uplands for the sheep; the lowlands for the cultivation of crops and, in the middle, he has what we call the "ffridd-land," which is used in the summer-time to graze the store cattle and the weakling sheep. He cannot send them lower, because he has cultivated that part of his land to produce corn and hay and so on. During the winter this same land provides a keep for the mountain sheep. But when this middle land is taken from him, as is so often the case, he has then to go to some other farmer who has not a flock of sheep, and actually pay no less than from £1 to £1 5s. per sheep for allowing his sheep to graze on this pasture in the winter.
I would ask the Minister to keep his eye on the War Department and the Forestry Commission because these two, and particularly the War Department, are playing havoc in Merionethshire, As a matter of fact we have an old R.A. camp there, which was established years ago and which took over 8,000 acres of land. On the last year or so they have taken an additional 5,000 acres against all protest and public feeling. May I remind the Minister that those farmers whose land has been used for the purpose of a firing range have not to this day been compensated for all the inconvenience and loss which they have suffered.
I would ask the Minister, and the Government, if they are in earnest about what

is contained in this White Paper, and if they are anxious to encourage the farmers to produce food to remember that we in North Wales, to speak plainly and vulgarly, are fed up with what has been done by the War Department in the last three years; and we cannot stick much more of it. I am appealing tonight for the assistance of the Minister in our fight to reclaim this good land which we love.
It is the policy of the Government to allow the tenants of council houses to buy their houses. In Merionethshire there is a large estate now owned by the Government which was taken over when a certain former wealthy person in Merioneth could not pay Death Duties. The tenant farmers on this estate are anxious to buy their farms. They were on the point of doing to when the estate was taken over by the Government. I ask the Minister if the same privilege which is to be extended to the tenants of council houses can be extended to these tenant farmers.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I hope the revivalist vigour of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) has had some effect upon the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). I also feel sure that any representatives of the War Office present will realise that Merioneth may shortly become a very good school for guerilla fighting. I will return to that point later.
Everyone who has spoken in this debate has pointed to the unfortunate fact that at the moment the agricultural production of this country is not only temporarily halted, but at some points is in a decline. I believe that the Minister will be able to do something, and has already done something, to revive the spirit of the industry. But what is holding up the main sweep of that advance— highlighted by the statement today from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the statement yesterday by the Prime Minister—necessary to produce more in this country is something which is more than economic. I believe that in general it is a feeling that the climate of confidence in the industry is diminishing.
It is one of those intangible things upon which it is difficult to lay a finger. But, in my talks to friends in the farming industry and to individual farm workers, I gained the impression that there is


spreading throughout the industry today the thought that in the 1930s, in the bad time, the people who pulled through were the people who farmed cheap, the people who went in for low farming instead of high farming. It must be the duty of this Committee to instil into industry the fact that that fear is unnecessary.
The necessity for greater production has been pointed out. If we can build up a strong agricultural industry and produce more food, we shall have the market under our own control. It is obvious from world statistics that the problem of getting food will become more serious daily and that, from the long-term point of view of defence, and so on, further agricultural expansion is necessary.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury was not very helpful. When hon. Members ask for Royal Commissions, that almost certainly means that they do not know their own minds on the subject under discussion. I know the versatility of the hon. Gentleman. We traversed the greater part of South America together. I have seen him mounted on a bucking broncho and in debate with people all over the world. His dialectic today could have been interpreted as a speech by a most extreme right wing landlord asking for an immediate increase in rents or the speech of an extreme left winger asking for nationalisation of the land. It is a case of "penny plain, tuppence coloured." Hon. Members can pick which bit they want and build up a whole dialectic on it.
In a way, the hon. Gentleman was attacking the 1947 Act. It is far better that our farmers should be prosperous than that the farmers of the Argentine or other parts of South America should be prosperous. That the industry should be prosperous is no disadvantage whatever. There is some weight in the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the management of certain farms. But my right hon. Friend pointed out today that he is determined to see that the land is properly farmed. By giving more power to the Executive to enable them to dismiss the bad farmer, he will put right some of the defects mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
In the same way these production aids are good in that they mean that the rich farmers will not benefit to the same extent as the small farmers. The hon. Member

for Wednesbury should remember that some 80 per cent. of our farms are under 100 acres. In his business he may have come across some of these rich farmers. Of course they exist, but most farmers are not extraordinarily well off. If there is to be profitability in farming, and if we compare world prices with those in this country, how much better it is that our men should do at least as well as the landlords in the Argentine and other parts of South America.
One of the problems we must face is not merely that of converting the hon. Member for Wednesbury but that of converting certain people on both sides of the House of Commons, and the House of Lords also, on the subject of the importance of agriculture. Unless we can increase our production, unless we can push up our agricultural processes inside this country, unless we can have increased efficiency in farming in this country, we are in very great peril indeed.
We have to disabuse our minds of some of the most old-fashioned economic ideas. We have to face the fact that in this country the era of cheap imported food has gone for ever, and that, if it does return, even if it means a Barmecide's Feast for a short time, it means the eventual bankruptcy of British industry. It is only by a continued process of an increase in world population and productivity that we can maintain our overseas markets.
I fear that when the Minister talked of the fact that the fundamental long-term policy for agriculture was lacking, he was being over modest. Already, he has described certain things that he is going to do, and I believe that these things can be and will be welded as time goes by into a coherent policy. Quite rightly, he is approaching this problem in a pragmatical and empirical way in order to build up the main basis of British agriculture, but, at the same time, I do believe that this fundamental agricultural policy which will emerge must be basic also to the economic policy of this country, and, from this side of the Committee, I want to say that it is necessary that we should develop a different slant on our economic policy.
Obviously, at the moment, we have to deal with the crisis, but I see a danger that, unless we are careful, we shall be


following in the footsteps of the late Sir Stafford Cripps and blundering from expedient to expedient. We have to face the fact that this country's economy cannot survive and cannot work if every fluctuation and every vagary in the American market causes here an economic crisis or an economic boom.
Somehow or other, we have to build up the £ which, after the immediate crisis has been overcome, is strong, and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have to have an economy in this country which is not constantly subject to international speculation. The basis of that economy, I believe, must be the agricultural and rural economy of this country; otherwise, the strength of the £ is very dependent on the weakness of the dollar, and they are relative one with the other in that sense.
I fear that there is a danger in all parties that our future policy may be developed by an economic outlook which may be temporary and may be described as dollar wise and pound foolish. I think the hon. Member for Wednesbury, in his rather intemperate criticism of the farming industry this afternoon, has done no good to this general project. There are certain things that can be done and which the Minister is already doing to carry out this immediate project of increasing the agricultural production by 12 or more per cent., but there are certain individual things to which I should like to call the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend.
The first is to bring home to the people of this country, and especially to the people who dwell in the towns, the importance of agricultural production. I believe that much more could be done than is now being done in pig production in the towns of this country. I know that there is trouble about the repeal of Regulation 62B, but there is a possibility of seeing that pig production is encouraged, and that the Minister might be able to help in that way. Second, I believe that there should be throughout the country and in all parties encouragement of the agricultural community in general, and, further, I should like to turn the Minister's attention to the question of land use.
I believe that the pledges the Minister has given will have to be implemented

on this question of land use. The hon. Member for Merioneth talked about the Forestry Commission, and I believe that they should review their use of good agricultural land. I think there is a burning question today in the taking of nearly 3,000 acres away from farming near Swindon for the development of a new town. That is a major issue. At the moment, we are losing land at the rate of 50,000 or more acres a year.
Then there is the question of the Army. When the last Government were in power I went down to Imber to look at the question of rearing sheep on Army ground. I was told it was impossible, but I discovered that 10 gamekeepers were going over the ground every day picking up rabbits. If gamekeepers can move with comparative immunity from danger, so can sheep. The De Havilland Aircraft Company have built large grass-drying plants for their airfields. I do not see why the Army and Air Force should not co-operate in the same way.
There are many other things which could be done, but I am critical at this stage of one thing proposed by the Government, the cut in the amount of money to be spent on drainage. Any cut in catchment board expenditure must inevitably mean that the drainage on high ground becomes more difficult. Any cut in the drainage on high ground makes it more difficult for people to plough up the necessary land and thus free more land for the production of fodder crops.
I think the Minister ought to look at this problem again to see whether some improvement cannot be made. As I said earlier, one can be dollar wise and pound foolish, and here, I believe, is something which should be done. I am glad to hear that the implementation of the hill farming and the uplands schemes is going on. I think much could be done—and the Minister talked of this in his speech this afternoon—to improve the advisory services. In the same way, I think a great deal could be done and is being done regarding the question of the actual management of farms through the executive and through the exhortations and action of the Minister.
I believe there is enormous scope for developing the grassland of this country to its full bent. Faced as we are by this economic crisis and as we have now been faced for too long, I believe that what-


ever Government is in power they must deal with the problem of making agriculture not only efficient, but also of expanding its production well beyond the target already set.
I think the Minister has set about his task very well, but the task which lies ahead is a very great one. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is largely a matter of producing the right climate of feeling in this country that agricultural production is our chief mainstay for the power and safety of the £. I hope that the Minister will look at some of the points that have been raised today and will resolve not to be completely overwhelmed by those Treasury arguments which are always advanced against any Minister of Agriculture.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I listened with great interest this afternoon to the views of the Minister on agriculture and I was very interested in the different topics he discussed. I want to assure him, on behalf of the Welsh farmers generally, that everything possible will be done to increase production in Wales. Wales has a very good record in agricultural production, and the latest figures show that the increase is going up.
I am very glad to find, for instance, that there has been a welcome increase in the numbers of dairy cattle. In March of this year pig production was 54 per cent. higher than it was 12 months ago, and even 7 per cent. higher than it was in 1939. A prosperous agricultural industry is the answer to rural de-population in Wales. I am exceptionally pleased to find that Wales is leading the country in schemes of hill farming and livestock rearing. It is a great compliment to the small hill farmers in Wales. They have been rather disappointed recently by credit restrictions and restrictions on investments, and I hope that that position will improve.
On the fixing of prices, I must register perhaps what is the first expression of disappointment, and that is in relation to wool. Wool is a commodity that has been bandied about for a long time and only in recent years has a guaranteed price been fixed for it. In 1938 the price was 10d. per lb. Last year it went up to 6s. 2d. and 6s. 2½d. per lb. Now, all

at once, in the Price Review we have a reduction of 25 per cent.
That is not very encouraging to the forgotten army of farmers in the hill districts and not very encouraging particularly to those Welsh farmers who own 215,000 fewer sheep now than they owned before the disaster that overtook sheep rearing. Although it is anticipated that it will take 10 years to restore flocks to their previous strength, the Welsh farmers have done wonderfully well. But I repeat that this reduction in the price of wool is very discouraging.
When one examines the hill farming schemes, one finds that over 50 per cent. of the money to be spent on them will not go towards improving houses and extravagances which might come in for criticism from my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). It will go towards the provision of water supplies, fencing and other things of real benefit to hill farming itself.
I wonder what is to happen to the huge amount of money that the Wool Marketing Board have in their coffers at the present time. I do not know exactly what the amount is, but I wonder whether some will be passed back to the producers. I have been greatly encouraged by what has been done for agriculture generally in the past by the Minister of Agriculture. If that policy can be maintained, as I am sure it will be, we shall derive a great deal of benefit.
I notice that there is a tendency not to encourage the production of milk on marginal land. I hope that in Wales, in particular, great emphasis will still be placed upon milk production, because 40 per cent, of agricultural output in Wales comes from milk and there is nothing more encouraging to any farmer than to receive a regular monthly cheque from the bank. Side by side with milk production, the breeding of store cattle is very important in Wales. I do not want to see milk production being regarded as a by-product of store cattle raising, or vice-versa. I want to see Welsh agriculture undertaking both activities as much as possible.
I regret very much that the machinery pools for hill farmers have had to be closed down. Whether they be parish pools or some other kind of pool, they should be encouraged. I hope the Minister will look into this matter and will try


to encourage these people to co-operate in the provision of machinery to help them in their arduous work in the countryside.
I was glad to hear reference made to common land, though not a great deal of encouragement was given to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and myself, who are always asking Questions about common land. Despite the fact that nothing much has been done since 1913, I think the Minister should give serious attention to the matter and should endeavour to ensure that the use of common land, which was such an asset to us during the war, is maintained, particularly for the production of potatoes.
In my two counties of Brecon and Radnor, during the war and since, we have had a good by-product, namely, seed potatoes, and those seed potatoes and other potatoes grown on the common land in Wales are disease-free. It is a source of enjoyment to me to see the lorries from Pembrokeshire loaded up with early potatoes grown from seed potatoes from my two counties. A great deal more of this can be done on common land.
My other suggestion is this—and perhaps this is rather more controversial. Is it not time that, in the same way as the National Health Service stopped the sale of medical practices, somebody stopped the sale of farms to some of the speculators in the City of London and elsewhere? Somebody ought to look into this, because I am not satisfied that the people who are buying these farms at high prices are real farmers. People who know nothing about farming are buying them. Although I am a great internationalist, I deprecate the fact that so many Poles come to Wales and buy up farms, because they are not doing it for the real purpose of agricultural production.
There ought to be an approved list of tenants and buyers of farms so that we can get the best people in charge of the food production of the country. We would not think of looking outside our own nation for generals to run our Army. If food production is so essential, we ought to ensure that we get the best people to run our farms.
There are one or two drawbacks, and the first is the lack of agricultural labour.

I suggest that there should be an extra column added to the agricultural returns Which we get in June and December, so that we, as Members of Parliament, might know how many agricultural workers have been called up, and thus have a real picture before us of what is going to happen in the long run. I know there are not many being called up, but we should know how many. In Wales there has been a reduction of 1,806 in the figures of agricultural workers for December, 1951 and 1,401 of those are regular worker. I want to know how many have gone into the Services.
Housing is another great drawback in the countryside. If the Minister of Agriculture will have a word with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, he will find that 41 rural and urban district councils in Wales have not built 10 houses each per year since the end of the war. They have built fewer than 60 houses each since the end of the war, and 21 others have built between them fewer than 100. That should be looked into.
I make this general appeal. The Government ought to try to convince the farmers of the need for a great production drive in the next few years. This is essential. We must also have a propaganda drive in the towns, and, despite what the Minister has said about long-term policies, we cannot just wait for announcements to be made. There must be—though I do not like the words—a long-term policy. We must have a long-term policy which gives security to the people of the countryside.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) because, although geographically we are poles apart, we have wool in common. I support every word the hon. Member said on the subject of wool. I am glad that he was able to maintain the almost entirely harmonious language which has been struck throughout this debate, which has been harmonious, if somewhat disjointed.
We must consider the background of it against which the Minister of Agriculture found himself six months ago. He then found that there was a downward trend in tillage and cattle. He found that costs were manifestly outstripping prices. He


found the Treasury and the public united —a very rare combination—in their unwillingness to find more cash for food. Against that background he has successfully produced the policy which we are discussing today. I venture to suggest that he has no reason to be depressed either with the policy or with the outcome of the debate upon it.
What has happened is that in recent months the climate of informed opinion has undergone a subtle but significant change. It is now recognised by a large number of people that the task of feeding ourselves, difficult though it has been during the last decade, may become yet more difficult in the years immediately ahead. I am not sure whether I should include in that body of informed opinion the "usual channels" which have been responsible for the rather eccentric arrangement of this all-important debate on food and agriculture.
In the result, the White Paper and the award have met with what, six months ago, we would have regarded as surprisingly little opposition. The settlement, whereby the additional cost to the farmer of £57 million is met by assistance to the tune of an extra £52½ million over the whole year, is broadly accepted. If there is any question about it, it is not in the allocation of that sum but in its application. As my right hon. and gallant Friend pointed out in his speech, we have here a new principle, a shift in emphasis from the end-price to the initial subsidy, which some people euphemistically like to call a production grant. I am inclined to quarrel with the frame of mind which calls an initial subsidy a production grant. I think that the blunter the words the better.
We should not pass over that shift in emphasis without at least some scrutiny and careful thought. The shift in emphasis, as I understand it, amounts to about 40 per cent. That is the total of the three subsidies in respect of ploughing up, fertilisers, and calf rearing, which amount to £15½ million, against a total in the Annual Price Review of £39 million. It excludes the additional cost in the year, which I calculate at about £6 million, which has to be added to the £24 million which the Minister of Food is to bear for maintaining the basic prices of feedingstuffs.
I regard the structure of those prices as all-important—perhaps decisive—in

the direction which our agriculture is going to take. I am not disposed to quarrel with the shift of emphasis—in this most difficult and exceptional year— as an experimental measure. Manifestly there is a need to reduce costs rather than to raise the end-price and increase the amount of capital involved in the industry. This is undoubtedly a good anti-inflationary tactic in the short run, but I do not think we should pass it, without discussion, as good agricultural strategy in the long run.
In approving it for this year, I should not like to feel that the Committee were approving it as a long-term policy and giving it their final blessing as an agreed and approved trend. It meets the problem of the small man who is tending to produce and live on a lower scale. It meets the problem of the bigger man, who is tending to contract production. It also counteracts the tendency of prices to run a losing race with costs and it is able to deal with very diverse land resources. It also meets the end which the Minister has set himself, of roughly another 500,000 head of livestock and another million acres under plough.
In the short term, I do not question that this is a good arrangement. In the long term, very careful thought should be given to it. I am not in favour of keeping our population in blinkers over its long-term prospects of food supplies and the cost thereof. The perpetual comparison of the cost of food today with the cost pre-war is false. The only yardstick is the cost of food to this island people in a radically changed world. The sooner it is understood that the cheap food era is dead, the better.
It is easy to declare that the cheap food era is dead. It has been done many times in recent months. It is much harder to declare the corollary, which is less welcome, that our food in future will be harder to get and will cost us more, not only this year or next year, but for a long time to come, and under any Government. In the new and perilous economic circumstances in which our people find themselves, it is imperative that they should recognise that fact.
It is now accepted by all that there should be a cushion between costs and shop prices. It is imperative not to conceal that cushion from the public or from


the producers. Not only will the production of food cost us more, but a higher proportion of the national income must in the future go upon food. The primary producers will have to receive more at all levels, proportionately more in relation to the rest of industry, than they have received in the past. That is a very significant change. The priority and importance of the food producers here and abroad has risen in relation to world demand for other things and so must their proportion of the reward which they are given.
Our farmers are now not only supplementing the nation's standard of living; they are providing the foundations of it. The British farmer is providing not only jam, or even butter, but he is providing the bread. While the economic consequences may seem politically delicate, I am persuaded that they will not prove socially disastrous. Let us consider that the nation last year spent in round figures £2,500 million on food and £1,500 million on tobacco and alcohol, of which £1,000 million was taxes.
I regard the prospect of such a change not as a disaster but as an essential prospective adjustment. Adjustment has got to be made in prices and our economy, but initially it has to be made in the minds of the urban population. Their frank acceptance of a higher priority for the food producers of this country and the world is, in the long run, the only sure guarantee for the farmers, although that higher priority may for a time be cunningly concealed from them by subsidies and other devices.
The decisive factor for the farmer in the long term will not lie on this side of the Committee or on that side of the Committee or in any election promises, but in the views of the urban voter. The urban vote will be decided not by what the farmer gets or does not get but on what it gets from him. It is a huge psychological task to bring this trend of thought about in the urban areas, and it transcends everything else.
I am persuaded that a system of prices which obscures rather than reveals this new situation is to be regretted. The farmer for his part should be looking not only to see that he gets value for money but that he gives value for money. The more we swaddle and conceal by subsidy, the harder it will be for the farmer to

realise not only what value he is getting himself but what value he is giving. The question in the long run is: What will produce the best incentive to economic farming? It is certainly not going to be initial subsidies, even if they are called production grants.
My right hon. and gallant Friend is only at the beginning of a tremendous task, a task that is going to mean a mental revolution for the people of this country. It means nothing less than that the agriculture of this country has to fill the deficits and shortcomings in other departments of our changing world economy. My right hon. and gallant Friend's role now is not that of keeping the farmers of this country happy but that of keeping a nation of 50 million people alive. Our urban population has got to learn some harsh new facts of life which no change of Government will solve for them. They have got to revolutionise their ideas, get their food and our farming in a new perspective, and realise that what they pay for it is henceforth no more than the cost of keeping alive.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: This has, I think, been an extremely useful debate. Those of us who are interested in agriculture must thank those hon. Members who were interested in the Private Business which came before us at 7 o'clock for answering so readily to the appeal made by Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), as he always does, made a thoughtful speech on this subject of agriculture, and the points he made and the questions he asked about the shifting of emphasis from end products to production subsidies constitute something which does deserve a lot of thought and very much debate. I believe that that question is not answered by this White Paper. We have to give this further consideration and decide whether this should be part of our long-term policy—this shifting of emphasis on payments from end products to production subsidies, such as we are now seeing in this White Paper.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right, too, in saying that we have seen—and it is right that we should have seen—an end of the era of cheap food. Cheap


food is not to be expected in this country again in existing world conditions. Certainly we do not want our farmers to be providing us with cheap food at the price of the sort of conditions in which they existed during all that period between the two World Wars. We do not want to see a reversion to that sort of thing, not only for the sake of the farmers themselves, but also for the sake of those who are employed by the farmers, and who are so important in this connection.
We in this Committee must face the facts, and it is certain that we have got to bring the urban population to realise what are the facts of the food situation of this country—the situation we shall be facing as time goes on when we get the increase of population that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke of when he made his interesting contribution at the beginning of this debate.
We have also, I think, to convince some of our own Members in the party which I happen to represent. Quite obviously we have got to try to convert my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), who always expresses in these debates a point of view which is worth expressing.

Mr. Gooch: Not at all.

Mr. Champion: However, I do wish he would do it at a little less length. I also wish he would pay some regard to the answers which have been made to him from time to time both from his own side and elsewhere—for example, the very devastating reply of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) during the last debate but one. It is not good enough, I think, for my hon. Friend to make precisely the same speech, however entertaining, in every agricultural debate and to ignore the answers that are made to him by those who speak know-ledgeably on agricultural matters.
I am sure that this idea of a Royal Commission is not a good one. I do not believe—and here I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser)—that we ought to farm out our thinking in this matter. The Agriculture Act is now only just over four years old; we have had only four years' experience of it. True, that should have given us some time in which to begin

to make up our minds on some of these problems, but I cannot agree that the time has come when we ought to give the job of our thinking in this connection over to a Royal Commission—which is, of course, in the main, a device to get others to do the work that we ought to be doing.
This is surely the place where we can from time to time submit Acts of Parliament, their operation and everything that goes on under them to closer examination. I wish that we had more opportunity here of examining agriculture, because agriculture is clearly the matter which is bound to affect the future life of this country in the increasing difficulties in which we are living.
The altering shape of world trade throughout the whole of this century, which has been moving at times steadily and at other times at a headlong pace, has been moving against us throughout the whole period, and the question we and the country as a whole must answer is: Can we successfully go on maintaining the population of this country as a factory island? Can we go on steadily draining our people away from the land in an ever flowing stream, denuding the land of its essential attendants? The land is the sort of master, which demands constant attendance or it will deteriorate, to our great disadvantage. Surely the answer to that question must be "No." We are bound to give that answer unless we close our eyes to world trends.
If that is the case, as I believe it is, we must think ourselves, and educate this nation to think, more and more in terms of more food from our own soil. Our society in its struggle for physical survival must be prepared to make the adjustments necessary to that end, and that means we must think in terms—and some of it means thinking in revolutionary terms—of devoting more and more of our resources to food production. That is essential. It is essential that our thinking, and any revolutionary thought of that sort, if it is agreed, must be backed by the necessary action by Govermnent, by our educational services, and by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee who think that way.
In the last agriculture debate my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury said that the Tory Party has been the tradi-


tional custodian of the farmers' interests and that the Labour Party has always been the traditional custodian of the rights of industrial workers. I would only say to him and to others of my hon. Friends who might be thinking that way that this party can never properly govern this island, as we shall be governing it again after the next election, if we do not think in terms of the whole of our community, which includes the farming interests and not merely the industrial interests.
The 1947 Agriculture Act is surely an indication of the fact that this party, which I am representing at this Box today, ceased, in 1947 at any rate, to think purely in industrial terms, for it put on the Statute Book a great Act of Parliament which is of inestimable benefit to the farming community as a whole, and which is, I gather, being fully worked by the Minister and his hon. and right hon. Friends. This is a good Act of Parliament, but it is not of necessity the perfect instrument. It is something which must be subjected to examination, and we must not blind ourselves to its failures which must inevitably be revealed in the passing years. This is the type of debate in which we should subject Acts of Parliament of that kind to examination.
Despite the initial success, we have failed to arrest the drift from the land. Human life gravitates towards the towns as surely as apples fall towards the centre of the earth. Somehow we have to find a way to stop that drift continuing. I think that it is a fact that the treatment of labour within our economy has caused and is still causing industries upon which we depend for our survival to be seriously undermanned. Coal and agriculture, steel and transport are cases in point. Wages and other things are important factors in this.
I cannot help noticing the fact that the agricultural worker's earnings are some £2 per week less than that of his town brother. Living conditions, housing, electricity, water supplies and transport are all-important factors in the lives of the agricultural workers and other people who live in our rural areas, and we have to press on with the priorities which were given by the Labour Government to some of these things.
It is true in these matters we are far from achieving complete success, judging

from the complaints of hon. Members representing Welsh divisions. Their complaints this afternoon were important ones. They are complaints of which we have to take notice and do something about. If the Minister succeeds in his hopes of getting another one million acres added to the tillage area, that will be no use unless we are left with someone to plough it. We have to do something to Stop the drift from the land and to bring about a reversal of this drift which has been going on throughout the whole of this century, and which the Agricultural Act, 1947, good though it is, has not yet succeeded in arresting.
There is, too, the question of the guarantee of markets and the stability of prices which were expected to be a stimulus to production. I think that we have to admit that much of that earlier success petered out last year. The initial impetus that was given to higher production seemed to meet with less success during the whole of last year. We know, of course, that other factors came into this.
We know that we have not reached the end of the possible productivity increase because we have not reached the limit of the capacity of our land to produce. That is quite clear. Was the carrot—to use a term to which some people object—held in front of the agricultural community not large enough and juicy enough? There are many opinions about this. Or was the stick contained in Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, not wielded with sufficient vigour?

Mr. Baldwin: No.

Mr. Champion: I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member. The stick of Part II must be wielded. Somebody must grasp it and smite right and left, but we must make sure that we are smiting the right people, and they are in the main the people in the C category and the lower ranges of the B category. Those are the people who need stimulus. The people in the higher ranges of the B category are those who need assistance; assistance such as that by the N.A.A.S. which will help to raise them into the A category.
Let the Minister not be frightened of using the stick provided in Part II. Let him set about this task of ensuring that we get a proper use of our land in return


for some of the benefits conferred by the 1947 Act and the Price Reviews which have followed it.
I know that the carrot is not a sufficient incentive. People with experience in industry and other fields have found that when income is raised to a certain level there is a tendency for the people receiving the additional income to take things a little easier. Some people react in that way until their living standards catch up with their new standards of income. It is largely a matter of how quickly the wives begin to use their power as a pressure group of one to force their husbands to struggle for the higher incomes which are possible of attainment.
Some farmers put back a reasonable amount of their additional income into the industry. Some prefer a Bentley. Some slack off their effort. But I believe it is natural and to be understood —my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury mentioned this—that the National Farmers' Union should always be crying out for the larger and juicier carrot, for it is a union and it would not be doing its job if it did not do something like that.
I shall say no more about the use of the stick except that I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will do something about this because, with 277,000 farmers in the country, it is wrong to suggest that there were only 70 who should have been dispossessed in 1951. It should have been a very much bigger number than that. What applies to farmers applies equally to some of the estate owners. Last year the number under supervision was 344 and only nine were subject to compulsory purchase so that the estates should pass into the hands of people who would do something about them.
Let us have a little more effort in stimulating the county agricultural executive committees. My right hon. Friend devised a first-class instrument in the county agricultural executive committees. It is an experiment in democracy which I believe is to be found only in this country. A democracy can only continue to work when those who form part of it accept responsibilities, and the county agricultural executive committees must accept their responsibilities.
During the past few months we have had much talk about the long-term agri-

cultural policy. When I read the White Paper, I wondered if paragraphs 9 to 12 were in fact that long-term policy, It is true that those paragraphs contain a useful indication of what the Government thinks are the objectives, but it is singularly devoid of an indication as to how those objectives are to be reached-indeed, the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman this afternoon, despite the fact that he attempted to carry us a little further, did not answer the questions which must be welling up in the minds of everyone interested in the agricultural industry.
What is meant by the words:
where necessary require that full productive use is made of the land"?
Is it only the circular which he has sent out to the county agricultural executive committees that he has in mind in this connection, or what does he propose that would be an addition to Part II of the 1947 Act? It is certain that the price review has not increased the size of the carrot. The carrot is being maintained at the same size as it was after the 1951 Price Review and only recoupment is provided for in the 1952 Review.
That means we cannot expect anything from that to stimulate farmers into producing the 60 per cent. over pre-war at which the Minister aims. There is no hint, either in the White Paper or in his speech this afternoon, of providing those additional resources for farmers that are necessary if they are to do their job. Certainly there is no hint of the means which the Minister will adopt to give us the additional men on the land that are necessary. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) rightly made some telling points on this aspect of it.
There is no promise in the White Paper or in the speech of the Minister of more machinery for industry. Indeed, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman stressed the fact that the job must be done with the tools which are at present available to the industry. There is no promise of sufficient financial resources, despite the request made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the banks that full weight should be given to granting credit for food production. Some of the difficulties in this connection were pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) who made a strong


point of the difficulty facing the small farmer of increasing that part of his farming dependent on meat production which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows full well, necessitates waiting for some time before getting a return.
Is the readjustment of payment from end products to production subsidies, coupled with his guarded threat of
where necessary require that full productive use is made of the land,
a sufficiently powerful incentive to secure the increase to 60 per cent.? And where does the horticultural section of the industry figure in all this? There is no mention of it in the White Paper, and there was nothing said about it in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman this afternoon. We want to ensure that the horticultural industry is a prosperous one, but we must ensure that it is brought to a stage of prosperity while at the same time ensuring that a reasonable price is charged for the product to the housewife who is the consumer.
These are some of the points which spring to my mind in connection with this debate and with the White Paper before us, and they are some of the points which deserve an answer. A number of matters have been raised which I will not repeat because time will not permit. But I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply will satisfy us on those points which are exercising the minds of Members of this Committee, of the farming community as a whole and of everyone who wishes the farming industry—providing it will give us the products—the prosperity which we desire for it.

9.36 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): This has been a useful debate. It has certainly been harmonious and almost without exception constructive. We have had the usual interlude that we expect in agricultural debates from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), who has his point of view and his entertainment value. If we had not enough moral force of our own, we made way for the City of London guild churches; and as agriculture has a tradition to pay tithes to the Church, I

suppose we can feel that we have acted in the traditional way. We must be grateful to the hon. Members concerned for restraining themselves and allowing us to return to our debate so quickly.
I will deal immediately with one point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) regarding the intention of my right hon. and gallant Friend in the operation of Part II of the 1947 Act. My right hon. and gallant Friend alluded to the necessity for stepping up efficiency and the action he was taking to deal with that. It has been encouraging to find that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that greater use of this part of the Act is needed. There is inefficiency on some farms and there is a good deal that can be done.
But I feel that the point should be made—and I am sure this is a point with which the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) would agree— that the whole conception of this Act is that the industry is a self-governing industry and that it is the industry which must use the stick. The Minister has given the lead and has told the industry what is needed, and we look to the industry to accept its share of the responsibility for bringing the laggards into line, if necessary, and dealing with those who are incapable of getting proper production out of their farms. I wish to make the point that it would not be effective, and I am sure it would not be the wish of my right hon. and gallant Friend, for him to be wielding the stick. It is up to the farmers themselves to do the job.
The hon. Members who represent constituencies in the Principality, and who spoke with great power and conviction, raised one or two points which I feel need a reply. If the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) will send me a copy of his report, I shall certainly study it with interest. It is indeed a sorry record that there should be there no more than 3 per cent. connections with the electricity supply. It is true that we cannot go ahead as fast as we should like in this field, but my right hon. and gallant Friend is well aware of the need for progress; and in spite of the stringency of the present time he was able to restore £1 million of the cut made last autumn. I should indeed be interested to read this report.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) spoke about the need to keep a close eye on the Forestry Commission. I assure him that my right hon. and gallant Friend is doing that. The satisfactory outcome of the situation at Towyn shows that my right hon. and gallant Friend is sensitive to the feelings of the people in that locality and is well aware of the considerations needed to keep a right balance between forestry and agriculture. On the point about the tenants at Glanllyn, if there is a general demand from the tenants to purchase their farms and evidence is brought to that effect, we shall be ready to consider it with an open mind. I cannot say more than that until I see just what the demand is.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) complained that the wool price was not high enough at 4s. 6d. a lb. I think that he was drawing rather a long bow there. It is true that there has been a substantial reduction from 6s., but it is still a pretty good price. I assure him and his hon. Friends who are Members for the Welsh constituencies that we are well aware of the hard and difficult life which farmers have in those parts of the world and of the most valuable contribution which they make towards production. We shall certainly do anything we can to assist these farmers who work in such difficult climatic and geographic conditions.
The question of horticulture was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh). This is a vexed problem. The right hon. Member for Don Valley will be familiar with it. There is no complete and cast-iron answer to it. I think it is true to say that the leaders of the horticultural industry are well aware that they must adjust their production and their economy to the demands of consumers in this country, and that all that they can reasonably ask for and expect is a proper protection against unfair competition from imported produce.
If we can secure that for them, we shall have done all that can be expected. It is only fair to put in perspective the present position with regard to imported produce. At present, to some extent fortuitously for the horticultural world, the volume of imports has been substantially reduced because of our balance of payments problems. We all agree that as a

long-term solution the quantitative control of imports of agricultural produce is not satisfactory, but horticulturists realise that the present quotas are small.
In the main, horticulturists now have less competition from imported produce than they have had for some time. The hon. Member mentioned the figure for the strawberry crop. The picture he gave was not entirely complete. It is true that an increased quantity of strawberries has been imported to help out the Brittany farmers to the extent of £100,000; but even then that brings the total quantity of imports up to only £165,000 compared with £492,000 last year.
Much as I sympathise with the troubles of the strawberry growers in Hampshire, it cannot be said to be mainly or entirely due to an increase in the quantity of imported produce. This brings us back to the point that, inevitably and whatever their difficulties, the horticulturists must always run the risk of adjusting their production to consumer demand.
With regard to the longer-term issue, the tariff proposals are before the Government, and they have been under consideration for some time. We are hopeful that it may be possible to bring that consideration to a conclusion in the course of the next few months. It is; good to bring it to a conclusion, but I must make it quite plain that, at this stage, I cannot commit myself to what the conclusion will be. I can assure the Committee and horticulturists generally that we are well aware of the strength of their case and of the strength of feeling amongst horticulturists, and that it is being given the best consideration that it can have.
I will now deal with one or two aspects of the general issue of the prices award and the policy which my right hon. and gallant Friend has placed before the Committee. In the course of the debate, several hon. Members have made the point that, at the end of last year, production was showing a definite decline in certain important aspects, such as tillage for corn and the rearing of calves for future beef supplies, and that there was a general feeling of a lack of confidence amongst producers as to what the future held.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley said that he saw no logic in such a thing, and I quite agree with him. It may not


be logical, but nevertheless it was a matter of fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), in his very cogent and persuasive speech, made the point extremely well, and from the other side of the Committee, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) made the same point. It was a matter of fact; there was that lack of confidence, combined with the decline in certain important aspects. Therefore, my right hon. and gallant Friend, in the settlement which he made, must be judged against the background of the extent to which the settlement was successful in dealing with this situation, and in getting the upward trend that is required at the present time.
Here I should like to make a comment in reply to the hon. Member for Wednesbury. I know that most hon. Members here feel that there is not a great deal of weight in his views, and that, therefore, I should not spend too much time on them, but I feel that those views can upset the confidence of the public. There is no truer word than was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), in his excellent speech this evening, that it is not the party vote which will decide what happens to agriculture in this country. At the end of the day, it is the urban vote, and it is vitally important that those people should understand the general economy of agriculture and whether or not it is giving good value. It is for that reason that I feel that I should address one or two remarks to the hon. Gentleman.
First, may I answer the specific point which he raised with regard to the value put on the production of eggs in the Departmental calculations? His point was whether there was a certain quantity of eggs which went into unconventional channels and did not reach the packing station, and whether this volume of eggs, which he thought was considerable, was taken account of in the Departmental calculations and in the Review.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Departmental calculation is inevitably largely estimated. It is an estimate of the revenue and expenditure of farming for the current year which is then going on, and therefore the calculation is based, not on packing station through-put, which is not known till the end of the year concerned, but, first of

all, on the number of adult poultry in the country and, secondly, on the average production of adult poultry in the country which then gives the total egg production less a figure allowed for home consumption on the farms. Therefore, I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the global production of eggs is the one of which account is taken.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Nothing depresses mankind quite so much as the totally incomprehensible, so I will sit down and accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Nugent: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman intervening on that.
Returning to the more serious part of his argument, he said that this award is too large and that by giving higher prices, far from getting greater production, we are in fact getting less production. I should like to put this point to him.
I will concede the point to him that if the price is too high, it will throw an additional burden, by raising the cost of living, on the cost of production of our manufactured goods and, therefore, on our export trade. That is obvious, but if the price is too low and fails to attract the volume of production we desire, it will then necessitate increased purchases from abroad if we are to maintain our general standards of feeding which, once again, Will throw an increased burden on our export trade.
At the present time, that will not only have a direct effect, but a secondary effect by making our increased demands probably push up world prices because of the greater competition. At the present time, with the world food position as it is, it is quite obvious that that is a direction in which we do not wish to go. The argument that lower profit will bring higher production is fallacious in this particular picture.
I will concede to the hon. Gentleman that there are forms of economy where a lower level of profit will bring out a high production because the people concerned must produce more if they are to get their living. I well remember a classic example of that among the Canadian wheat farmers in the depth of the depression in the thirties. They actually increased their production while decreasing their profit margin because that was the only way in which they could get a living. They got their living from sales off the farms.
The picture in this country is different. Our farming is by no means uniform. It is mainly diverse and complex. If all our farms were roughly the same size, with the same soil and climate, we might possibly get the sort of result about which the hon. Gentleman spoke, but in the circumstances of our farming economy, where the majority of our farms are small ones—80 per cent. below 100 acres—if the margin of profit is reduced the trend is exactly what happened in the last 18 months. The farmer concerned sees his profit margin shrinking and then decides that the safest thing for him to do is to reduce his level of production, manage with a smaller cash income and concentrate more on subsistence farming, living more off the farm and thus, by reducing his commitments, getting by in the event of bad times ahead.
That is exactly the trend that has started in the last year or so and, of course, nothing could be more damaging to our present economy at a time when never have we more wanted increased production from the farmers. Therefore, my right hon. and gallant Friend, in deciding what was the proper level at this Review, had very much in mind the need to reverse this trend on these particular farms. On the larger farms the picture is a very different one, and in the main, on those with good land, there is a higher level of production. It is on the smaller farms that production has fallen.
In the few minutes remaining, I have no time to take up the point that the right hon. Member for Don Valley made on the link between milk and beef. I think experience has shown how very sensitive the milk price is in the farming economy and it was probably the reduction of the profit margin on milk in the 1950 and 1951 Reviews that was one of the main factors in shaking the confidence of the farming community and causing the downward trend in beef and tillage which we have experienced. I have no doubt that if we want to see a big increase in beef production, which of course we do want, the greater part must come from suitable calves reared from dairy herds.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will not forget that we gave a higher incentive for beef in those Reviews.

Mr. Nugent: That brings me to a point with which I want to deal briefly, namely, the value of specific subsidies. I am certain that if we want to increase beef, the right answer is to put the greater part of the incentive in the hands of the man who will start the calf on its way. In the past that was highly successful and I have no doubt that the renewal of the subsidy will have the same result. If the same amount were put on the end-price of beef, most of it would go, not to the calf rearers but to the storekeepers, fatteners, dealers and so on, and to secure the same result one would have to give a bigger reward.
In our complex farm economy the national price structure is a very blunt weapon. If we are to have the maximum production from all our farms, I think we shall find frequently that it is good value in the national interest to give a specific subsidy. That is included in the cost of the food which the consumer must eventually pay, but unless we do that we shall be forced to give a much higher price for the end-products. I am certain that at the present time this subsidy is a good and proper value.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the criticism that has been made that we have not set the sights high enough in our target of production. The National Farmers' Union have said that much more should be produced but that it can only be produced if there are more tools available for the job. But they are not available at the present time in the strained economy of the country. What is wanted is increased net production without extra tools and materials, or at any rate with a minimum supply, and that, I believe, is what my right hon. and gallant Friend's policy will secure.
I hope and believe that both farmers and farm workers will respond to the lead which my right hon. and gallant Friend has given with the sound economic basis he has provided for the industry and that they will respond by giving the extra food that the nation so badly wants at the present time. I ask the House to give its blessing to this policy.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN DEVELOPMENT BILL

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [10th June] on consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal.)

Clause 3.—(CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT OF EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS.)

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, leave out from "as," to the end of line 29, and insert:
may be reasonably necessary for securing the intended relief from congestion or over population in the area to be relieved and the making of any necessary provision for accommodation for carrying on any industrial or other activities and the provision of any necessary additional public services in the receiving district:"—[Mr. Leslie Hale.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

10.1 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: On Tuesday we wasted a great deal of time on this highly complicated Bill, because the Ministers in charge were quite unable to answer practically any of the questions which were put to them. I hope we shall not have this repeated tonight, and that there will be a Law Officer present who can deal with these complicated questions as they arise. Are we going to have a Law Officer present? There are no differences in principle between either side of the House on this Bill. We are trying to improve it and get it to work, but the draft is highly complicated.
What are the effects of the various provisions? The Ministers certainly did not know on Tuesday, and their complete inability to answer these questions caused endless delay. Surely they have learned something meanwhile and are going to have somebody who can answer the questions. May we have an answer?
Since the Minister in charge refuses to answer, I would ask leave to move the adjournment of this debate until a Law Officer of the Crown can find it convenient to be here and assist us. Most of the time on Tuesday we were in Committee, but you, Mr. Speaker, were here a certain amount of the time, and I feel you must have realised how much time was being wasted, because we could not

get an answer to the question of what was the purpose of certain words in various Clauses.
On Clause 2 I asked eight specific questions as to the purpose of various words. Nobody could give any answer at all. Therefore, I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of this debate until some convenient time when a Law Officer can be present to assist us.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that Motion. The fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with the answers he has received does not entitle him to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Paget: My trouble is that I did not get any answer of any sort, kind or description. I asked why words were there, and the answer was complete silence. I asked what was the purpose of this Clause and why it was wanted, and nobody could tell me because nobody knew. A Bill like this must contain a series of legal points, and I submit that it is most unfair on the House that we should have to deal with this eminently legal Bill without any legal assistance.

Mr. Speaker: Every Bill necessarily involves legal points, but laymen with instruction have frequently been found capable of dealing with them.

Mr. Paget: The misfortune was that the particular laymen in charge of this Bill proved themselves on Tuesday utterly incompetent either to explain or understand their own Bill, and that is what caused so much trouble.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point, and I have ruled upon it. I hope that he will now address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I do not know if we can now get some statement from the Minister. The debate on this particular Amendment was continued to the time of Adjournment in order that the Minister might get some instructions on it and might consider the matter. His view of the Clause was that it referred to matters other than those set out in the Amendment. Can the Minister now tell us whether he has received further instructions on this matter?

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I hesitate to join in this debate. My name has been on all the Amendments—at any rate from this side of the House—which have been discussed. I did not take any part in the debate, because I felt that the Minister had the support of so many of his hon. Friends who wished to speak that it would have been ungracious for hon. Members on this side not to give him that assistance which many Ministers have lacked in piloting a Bill through the House. For that reason I have not yet intervened in this matter.
I had the good fortune of hearing the debate on Tuesday, and I do hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider this point. I understand the argument is that this Bill should be passed because the Minister has had no hand in composing it. If that is the argument in its favour, I respectfully suggest that it is one which should commend itself to all sides of the House.
But however eminent may be those who composed this Bill—and on whichever side of the House they sit—there is no reason why humble backbenchers should not try to improve it. The difficulty in which we find ourselves is that words which are put in by very eminent Ministers—some of them almost as eminent as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Measure—have often been interpreted by the courts as having quite different meanings from those intended by their composers.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember that once, in regard to a former Cinematograph Act, we inserted various provisions dealing with safety and, as a consequence, the whole legal fabric of censorship in the industry was built up. In the same way, the strongest assurances were given by a very distinguished Attorney-General—Lord Hewart, who afterwards became the Lord Chief Justice—that under no circumstances could the Official Secrets Act be interpreted in a certain way; and yet, when he later sat as Lord Chief Justice, he interpreted the Act in the very sense in which he had assured the House, in perfectly good faith, that it could not be interpreted. This shows that even the best people, on studying an Act afresh, find that it bears a meaning which at first sight they supposed it did not.
What the Minister is trying to do is to put a term on the good which can be

done under this Bill. Why should he do that? If he does not like our particular Amendments, there is another place which contains a number of very able people— in fact, the majority of the Cabinet—and which could be very profitably occupied in thinking out possibly better forms of words than we have here.
I am quite certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West (Mr. Hale) would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment if the Minister could give us some assurance that the matter would be looked at again. If one looks at the Clause as it stands one can understand the phrase:
… as it may appear to him to be expedient…
It would be quite all right if it stopped short there, because that would allow the Minister all forms of discretion, but it goes on: "to impose for securing…." If one stopped there and inserted the words "town development," again the Clause would read perfectly logically and would cover everything in Clause 1.
The Minister spoke about this in a very haphazard way and told us that everything was in Clause 1, which deals with town development. Here we are dealing with relief from over-population, which is very necessary but very limiting. Why can we not have town development here in the same way as in Clause 1? If the Minister does not like our wording, would he consider amending it by saying: "As it may appear to him to be expedient to impose, for securing town development"? What is the objection to those words?
Everybody wants to get the Bill in the best form, and it seems ridiculous to spend a great deal of time arguing on each of these points, which cannot make any difference. They cannot make the Bill any worse, and they might make it better. It was hon. Gentlemen opposite who passed the Official Secrets Act—at any rate a Government presided over by the Prime Minister, whatever the actual party was. It was passed in good faith, but it has been interpreted in entirely different ways. The Minister should make sure that the words in the Clause are foolproof. The words I have proposed will cover his meaning and avoid the limitation of his own words. I agree that his words occur again, but perhaps they could be altered later on. Let us


have some statement of policy from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Later we shall come to the question of the German Debts, Which is bound to detain the House for some time. We ought therefore to get rid of these Amendments urgently, and we could do so if we had the co-operation of the Minister. I have not addressed the House on this Bill before, but I have been associated with many of the Amendments. I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, but if short, sharp, crisp arguments do not appeal to him, some of my hon. Friends will be forced to put their argument at greater lengths. I hope that will not be necessary, and that we can quickly leave the Bill better than we found it and can all catch our last trains home.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is——

Mr. Leslie Hale: Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West) rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member moved the Amendment and is entitled to speak again.

Mr. Hale: I have the right and the duty to reply, in view of the course that the debate has taken. I do not associate myself with some of the criticisms made by some of my hon. Friends, that the Minister does not understand the Bill, which is ungenerous. Very few people understand the Bill in all its details, some of which are virtually incomprehensible.
Let us face the issue between us. The right hon. Gentleman replied to my remarks by saying that there was very little difference between us, and that the words to which we object were really legal words. And so my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) got up, as luck would have it, just as the time was passing to the moment for the automatic adjournment and suggested that there should be given a chance for the Law Officers to have a look at this and of thinking what it does mean.
I really should have thought—though I would not claim to be an expert on legal or sartorial matters—that when ray hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, both of them men of the

highest standing at the Bar, express their real doubts about the meaning of these words, the right hon. Gentleman would have carried put the elementary duty, as a matter of courtesy to them, of saying, at least, that he had given further consideration to this matter and had con-stilted the Law Officers of the Crown about it.
10.15 p.m.
What, in fact, has he done? He has not even troubled to intervene at all. He may say that he has exhausted his right to speak. But the Parliamentary Secretary has not. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary could have intervened. Moreover, I am perfectly certain that the House would willingly accord the right hon. Gentleman the right to intervene if he felt so inclined. We are anxious to get on, but I am perfectly certain that, on a matter of this importance, the House would be perfectly willing to hear the right hon. Gentleman again.
He went on to say this:
The hon. Gentleman doubted whether I had been well advised by those whose duty it is to advise me. I shall refer mainly to that point, because I have absolute sympathy with what he wants to do. Industrial development is one of the main purposes which can be assisted by, the town developments here contemplated"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 158.]
We have now reached this stage that there is no issue of principle between us at all. The Minister says, "I have at heart precisely the purpose that is envisaged in these words."
What is the reason, then, for his not accepting this Amendment? His reason for not accepting this Amendment is confined to one proposition, and to one proposition only: he says he thinks the Words are already covered by the words in parentheses in Clause 1. He referred to those words;
In this Act the expression town development' means development in a county district (or partly in one such district and partly in another) which will have the effect, and is undertaken primarily for the purpose, of providing accommodation for residential purposes"—
and then come the words in the brackets to which the fight hon. Gentleman referred—
(with or without accommodation for the carrying on of industrial or other activities,


and with any public services and other incidentals needed) the provision whereof will relieve congestion or over-population elsewhere.
We come to this. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is right. It may be that at some future date the courts will say he is right. But what harm is there in saying he is right? What harm is there in accepting this Amendment? Why is he spending all this time in resisting this Amendment, which certainly clarifies the position, which he says he agrees with, which he says he does not complain about in principle at all? Why not accept it? I have said, and my hon. and learned Friends have said, we will not argue about a word here or about a word there, if the right hon. Gentleman says that in another place we could have another form of wording so as to make this clear. There is no objection to that at all.
It really is not good enough in these circumstances for the Minister to try to suggest that time is being uselessly wasted. It is not being wasted by us, but is being wasted by him. He made it perfectly clear in an earlier suggestion that this Amendment could readily be accepted.
I have not the slightest intention— because I do want to get on—of recapitulating the arguments I made in my opening observations—not the slightest intention. I do not wish to do so— though it would be fair to say that I see here now a lot of people who did riot display much interest before. I am very glad that interest is manifesting itself— and, indeed, even apparently expanding. It is a very good thing and a very helpful thing in a democracy, and in Parliament, that we should have bigger attendances on these occasions when we are trying to improve a useful and important Bill.
But I do ask the right hon, Gentleman, finally, just this: is he going to say to the House that he just does not care, that he is not taking any notice—not rioting down the arguments at all—that he has not taken any advice upon it, that he proposes to leave it thus? Or has he taken advice? And if he has, why could he not have intervened long ago and said so? He really could have saved all this. Could not he have said, "I have seen the Law" Officers and the Law Officers confirm my view"?
The right hon. Gentleman must face this as a substantial argument because, as I said before, the whole tenor of the rules about legal interpretations is based on the general proposition that if one opens with a series of general words and then subsequently limits them, it is the limitation which prevails. That is the whole tenor of a series of decisions. I should be out of order in referring to a later Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman but it is certainly another example of an attempted clarification which reiterates this limitation which leaves out the question of industrial development. If one gets in paragraph after paragraph a whole series of references to general development, but with no provisions for industrial development, it is exceedingly important that we should have it stated clearly.
It is not necessary for me to say any more, because the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the argument. He accepts the proposition that there is a need for industrial development. He accepts the proposition that there must be provision for industrial development where required. He accepts the proposition that there must be financial aid for industrial development. Yet he says quite obstinately, "In my view the Clauses cover it." I say to him with complete sincerity that I have very real doubt whether they do. So, we have sought to clarify, we have sought to amend, and we have sought to improve. I should have thought we would have had more co-operation in our effort to make a useful improvement on the lines which the Minister has frequently said he has in mind.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): In the long debate which we have had in Committee and on the Report stage, I have been treated with so much courtesy by the hon. Gentlemen charged with the opposition that I would not wish to be thought guilty of any discourtesy. In the three-quarters of an hour when we debated this on Tuesday I explained the purpose of Clause 3. It is a piece of machinery which allows the Minister to make conditions for the purpose of carrying the objectives set out in Clauses 1 and 2. I am advised—and I accept the advice, which seems to me to be sensible—that it would be wrong to


use Clause 3, which is merely a piece of machinery for power to make conditions, to restate in another form, however admirable, the clearly stated objectives laid down in Clauses 1 and 2.
Since the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) says he is sincerely concerned about the dangers which might follow if we have made a mistake, I can assure him that we are certain from our information, which I must trust, and which indeed seems to me to follow common sense, that it would be wrong to use Clause 3, which is a machinery power of making conditions, to restate the objectives laid down in Clauses 1 and 2—which, incidentally, the House has already passed.

Mr. Bing: Will the right hon. Gentleman not deal with the argument? I do not think he has really seized the argument we have tried to address to him. It is not that this Clause is being used for restating, but that the machinery Clause is being used for a limitation. Will he not deal at any rate with the argument that he should stop at the word "expedient"?

Mr. Macmillan: I would have been glad to do so had that been the Amendment. As it is not the Amendment, it seems to me that I can hardly deal with it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4.—(LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRIBUTIONS TO COUNCIL OF RECEIVING DISTRICT.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(2) An authority, when giving an undertaking under this section, may lay down, as conditions to which payment of the contributions undertaken to be made is to be subject, such conditions as it may appear to that authority to be expedient to impose for securing the intended relief from congestion or over-population.
This Amendment gives effect to a promise made in Committee to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), but it only partially meets his point. In Committee we said that we would see whether it was possible to give an exporting authority which made contributions to

the receiving district the same conditions that the Minister had when he made a contribution.
This Amendment brings the Clause into line with Clause 3—that is the Clause which gives the Minister power to make conditions—only as regards conditions; it does not give the contributing authority power regarding payments. The reason for that is that if an exporting authority comes to an agreement with an importing authority to give money to the receiving district it will be an agreement entered into freely between equals, and, if it is an agreement entered into freely between equals, presumably the exporting authority will have its remedy under the contract in the normal way. That contract will have to be approved by my right hon. Friend, who will therefore be in a position to prevent any weak receiving authority being dominated by a strong exporting authority.
I hope that the hon. Member for Acton will think that we have gone some distance to meet him. I ask him to bear in mind that presumably no authority will agree to give financial aid to a receiving district without the financial officers of that authority making absolutely certain that its interests are safeguarded in the event of the conditions of the contract not being carried out. If these agreements are freely entered into and negotiated, we think that it would be wrong for one of the authorities to be the judge in its own case.

Mr. Sparks: I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for meeting our point of view on this item. There is nothing more that I can say. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has thoroughly covered the ground, and I feel sure that the proposals contained, limited though they may be, in the proposed Amendment will be acceptable to the exporting authorities concerned.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: There is one point upon which I would seek clarification. It seems curious that whereas the Minister can lay down conditions and if they are not fulfilled has power to deal with the matter himself, that in the case of the two authorities there should not be some provision to see that the conditions are fulfilled other than taking the matter to the courts


or the local authorities resolving it as between each other.
I wonder if it will be possible in another place to put in some provision by which the Minister himself may on behalf of the exporting authority act in the event of the conditions not being fulfilled. I can understand the wish to have good relations between the two authorities—the one exporting the population and the other receiving them—but we do not want to give too much power to either authority, particularly to the exporting authority, to wreck the scheme in the event of disagreement between the two.
The whole object has been to try to get the two authorities to work well with each other under the benign support and sympathy of the Minister. After all, the exporting authority is undertaking to make grants and contributions to the receiving district, and they themselves are more likely to be aggrieved by what appears to them to be a failure on behalf of the council of the receiving district to fulfil the conditions than the Minister himself.
It is, after all, the people and the industries from the exporting district which are going to move to towns that are being developed. If there is no course open to the exporting authority except the course of legal action available to them in the event of conditions not being fulfilled, I think there is a gap in the Bill. I would suggest to the Minister that some such arrangement as we propose should be made.
The Minister who is concerned with the fulfilling of his own conditions should be equally concerned with the fulfilling of the conditions by the receiving authority—the conditions as laid down by the exporting authority—and, in that case, it would be possible for the Minister to step in. Local feeling is going to be raised very high in the exporting districts in the event of failure on behalf of the council of the receiving district to fulfil conditions, particularly about housing. I feel that some provision should be made.
I have an Amendment down later on in the Report stage, and, if I am fortunate enough to be called by Mr. Speaker, I hope to make this point specifically. I think that at this stage the Minister might say something about the

interest he is going to take in the fulfilment of the conditions by the receiving district.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. I. Mikardo: I want to add my appeal to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I think we would all agree that one of the things most earnestly to be avoided is an open breach between different local authorities. We know that in practice they often have serious fundamental differences of opinion about things like boundary extensions and the division of financial and other responsibility over matters with which they are jointly concerned in contiguous areas. Yet, on the whole, it is one of the traditions of local government in this country that that kind of dirty linen is not washed in public. It might be argued that a difference about the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the conditions laid down in this Clause might be dealt with quietly in the same way. But here we are dealing with a matter which will be of intense public interest.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, nothing disturbs the minds of people, their interests and their patience, so much as the chance of getting accommodation and having their living conditions relieved from congestion. It is quite clear that in any area where advantage is taken of the provisions of this Bill to proceed with a scheme, the people who hope to derive benefit from it—some of the citizens of the exporting authority-will maintain an extremely close interest in this matter. If it appears at any time to them, rightly or wrongly, that their chance of deriving benefit is being impeded or stopped altogether by what appears to them to be wrong-headed action on the part of the neighbouring authority, we might get a very difficult situation.
In the Clause as it stands, with the addition proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it is clear that the exporting authority may lay down provisions, but there is no specific provision in the Bill for what happens if there is a dispute between the exporting and receiving authorities on the question of whether any or all of these conditions have been violated. I assume, as apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East assumed, that if there were


such a difference of opinion, {he only way in which it could be resolved would be by recourse to the courts.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that would be an undesirable situation, except possibly as a last resort when all other expedients have failed. Happily there is an alternative, and it is represented by the person and the Department of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I therefore add a plea to what has been said already to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he might not use the position and authority of his office and of his Department to lay down some provision for arbitrament by himself in a situation in which there was a difference of opinion between the exporting and receiving authorities about the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of these conditions.
That seems to me to be a simple and sensible provision which might be considered, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of the facilities provided by the reference of this Bill to another place to see what can be done about it.

Mr. Hale: If my hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting, what I am worried about is what need is there for this? Surely the exporting authority can lay down conditions about anything? I should have thought that the introduction of this limits their rights instead of extending them.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not know about that, and I hesitate to venture into matters of law where I should be thoroughly lost. But it seems to me that this new subsection is not needed at all on the argument which my hon. Friend is using, that the power is there anyway. I should have thought, as a simple layman, that anyone giving away money can, without specific powers, always impose the conditions on which he is giving it away. On that assumption, one should not have this subsection at all. Alternatively, one provides the subsection, and I am willing to take the views of the Parliamentary Secretary as to its necessity since doubtless he has thought about it.
If one is going to say that this subsection is necessary and is going to write into the Bill specific provisions for the imposition of the provision, then I think

in thaf alternative ease there ought to be some provision for arbitrament outside the court in cases of disagreement about whether the provisions are or are not fulfilled.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), do not think there is any need to press the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has raised. I believe, like my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), that this Amendment meets the point raised in Committee. I am not sure that the local authorities in this country who would have to export to another town in order to find housing accommodation would want to be liable to find themselves in the courts over the agreement they had made with the importing authorities.
The assumption is that there will be a mutual agreement, that the importing authority will agree to be co-operative in the building of these additional houses and perhaps some factories, and will make an agreement on terms which they themselves will have mutually agreed. I think that is sufficient. I say that, having been responsible on many occasions in the last 10 years for that kind of agreement with local authorities outside London.
Therefore, I do not feel that there is any need to put in the provision for arbitration. In any case, the first subsection of this Clause provides that the Minister's approval must be obtained. I assume that before giving his approval the Minister will want to see what kind of schemes have been drawn up and what kind of agreements have been made, whether the financial inducement offered by the exporting authority is reasonable and fair, and whether the return which the receiving authority is to get for that money is equal to the effort and the money which the exporting authority will obviously have to put in.

Mr. Mikardo: I hate to cross swords with my hon. Friend, because in this matter, as in many others, he is much more experienced and knowledgeable than I am, but surely the point to which he has referred is this. The Minister has to approve the conditions. So far well and good, but that does not solve the problem of what arises if one authority claims that the conditions which the


Minister approved are being honoured and the other claims that they are being violated.

Mr.Gibson: I have no doubt that any good lawyer in this House could make out a case that nothing like that would crop up. I do not anticipate, with the goodwill which already exists, at any rate around London—and I tried to give expression to this in the Second Reading debate—between the housing authorities and the receiving authorities that that kind of difficulty will arise. In any case there is the ordinary Jaw for meeting such a situation.
I again make the point that before the scheme becomes operative it has to pass the scrutiny of the Department and of the Minister, and I do not imagine any Minister of whatever party sanctioning a scheme which might have a lot of difficult snags about it and which might be unfair. In any case, I would prefer that local authorities should mutually discuss these matters together and reach satisfactory agreement. I think that is a much better way of dealing with it, and I hope that if his Amendment is called my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-east will not press it.
I believe that the Amendment put down by the Minister in response to the discussions which took place in Committee meet the point raised, and I hope the House will accept it.

Major Sydney Markham: The Minister, in introducing this Amendment, has gone a long way to meet the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and others during the Committee stage of this Bill, and I agree that it is a concession which benefits the exporting area. But does it, to any degree, assist the receiving authorities? The hon. Member for Acton represents an exporting area, while I represent an importing area in the shape of Bletchley, which we hope will be able to attract factories and citizens from Acton.
But this Amendment gives to Acton the entire dominance as to what the conditions should be in such a transfer, and that is immensely unfair to Bletchley, unless we can read into Clause 4 the fact that the Minister is to be the judge, or, shall I say, the fair broker between the exporting and the importing areas

when there is any great difference of opinion. J do not like this new Amendment, but I should be much more reconciled to it if the House could be assured that the Minister will be the decisive authority in cases of dispute.

Mr, G, Lindgren: I did not intend to intervene, but I thought that it might be for the general benefit of our discussion if I were to say that, on questions of fact so far as this Bill is concerned—and I am certainly not competent to deal with points of law—we did have a very exhaustive and extensive Committee stage. I do not think that there were many phases of town development which were not thoroughly and extensively discussed. I do not suggest that, so far as this side is concerned, we got all that we wanted but, so far as undertakings were given by the Minister during the Committee stage, those undertakings have been faithfully carried out in the Amendments which fall on the Order Paper.
Some of the discussions in the Committee stage did appear to evolve from a wrong conception that this Bill is the starting point for this expansion of towns; but this Bill is to facilitate what has already largely been agreed by county councils in inter-agreements resulting from discussions which have been going on over a period of years.
The London County Council, represented in another way by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. C. W. Gibson), has been negotiating in regard to the development of the plans for Essex, Hertfordshire, and the rest, over many years. That has been done in conjunction with the old Ministry of Town and Country Planning, followed by the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, and now the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and, in cases where expansion takes place, the general terms have already been agreed between, the authorities which are going to relieve congestion by sending people away, and those authorities which are going to receive them.
Therefore, so far as general fact is concerned—the establishment of towns and the development of them—there has already been agreement. This Bill is to facilitate that taking place, and is concerned with the financial arrangements.


I think that it will facilitate our discussion if I say this. Of course, this does not mean that the wording of the Act of Parliament is all that it should be. I am not competent to argue on details, but I should like to say that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee did very exhaustively and faithfully carry out the instructions of the House.
I do not mean to infer by that that hon. Members who were deprived of an opportunity of sitting on the Committee are necessarily deprived from taking part in the debate when the Bill is reported back to the House. But I would assure them that the Committee stage of the Bill was thoroughly undertaken both by those Ministerially in charge and those responsible for carrying on the opposition—and attempts were made to amend the Bill in its various stages.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am sure the Committee did excellent work and thorough work, but the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South-East (Mr. Benn), though a simple one, is I think an important one. I wish to ask the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to listen for a moment and see if I have the point right as I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to put it to the House. It is this; under this Clause the local authority may, with the Minister's consent, impose conditions in its undertaking. There will be conditions of various kinds, and there will always be agreements subject to which payment is to be made, but the additional power the Minister has reserved for himself and denied to the local authorities is the power of withholding payment when, in the Minister's opinion, these conditions have not been fulfilled.
If that is correctly stated—I would gladly give way if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to correct me—then the point is a quite narrow one and, I submit, of some importance. In a dispute as to whether or not the conditions of an undertaking have been carried out, if that dispute is between the Minister in respect of his undertaking and the local authority, then the Minister—and I do not object to this—says that as a matter of due administration and as a matter of policy he is entitled to be judge. But when there

is a similar dispute between one local authority and another, what is the position?
Let me say at once that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) that it is likely cases of the kind will be rare, and one certainly does not wish them to be common. If that did happen, then one of two things must occur; either there must be some provision in this Bill or, if the dispute is insoluble by agreement—and that is what we are suggesting for the moment—one local authority has to take the other local authority to court. There is no other way out. One will have to sue the other and say, "You undertook to pay me some money on certain conditions. Those conditions have been carried out. Pay up."
Then the question is whether it is really better that the courts or the Minister should be the judge of whether the conditions have been carried out or not. It seems to me rather remarkable that when the Minister claims to be the judge in a dispute between himself and a local authority, in the case where the dispute is between two local authorities he declines to be judge and puts the burden on the court.
I do not wish to be masochistic about my own profession, but I rather doubt whether the kind of dispute we are likely to get in a case of this kind is a suitable one or an easy one for the courts to decide. It is certainly going to be a much more expensive business, because in all these cases the court has to be informed about a large number of factors which would be within the daily competence and purview of the Minister and his advisers. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham that one does not want to involve local authorities in what would be expensive litigation, if it can possibly be avoided.
So, while I share emphatically the hope and belief that cases of this kind are and will be rare, I do suggest that the Minister might consider whether it would not be better to have these disputes settled by himself, because it seems to me that if the Measure were to provide a power to withhold payment, coupled with a reference to the Minister to decide, that is about the only way in which we could prevent two local authorities


who are unable to reconcile their differences in any other way having to go to court. One must give them a way out if there is a real difference of opinion. It seems to me that there may very well be a difference of opinion of what I can only call an administrative character—a broad question of what has or has not happened, just the kind of thing that the Minister himself might be able to resolve better and certainly more cheaply than a court.
I think it is an open question. I do not think it ought to be regarded as something that is clear, or in relation to which it is easy to say that the Minister can be the judge in his own case, but he cannot possibly judge between two local authorities, when the only alternative is to go to the court upon questions which may put the court itself in some considerable difficulty and lead it to have to decide matters which go beyond ordinary fact and which may be more proper in this case for an administrative decision.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I want to interpolate for a moment between the procession of speakers from the benches opposite, if only in the hope of setting an example of brevity to them, which I hope they will follow for the remainder of these proceedings.
It is said that there is a wrong differentiation between the Minister being the judge in his own cause under Clause 3 and there being no remedy other than through the courts under Clause 4. Of course, it is not quite true to say that it is not possible to institute legal action under Clause 3. It is true to say that, by reason of a variety of decisions from the Court of Appeal, it is extremely difficult to succeed in an action which seeks to show that the Minister should not have been satisfied. But these are words which have repeatedly been incorporated into Acts of Parliament during the five years when the Government supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman were introducing legislation. The New Towns Act is a very good illustration of that and, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will remember, if he cudgels his forensic brains, from it arose the Stevenage case.
As to the question under Clause 4 as to what is the more appropriate procedure, I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It seems to me that if, as may be the case, there is a dispute

between the local authorities, it would be difficult in any event, even if it were desirable to shut out—[Interruption.] It has been made clear that we are talking about things which would rarely happen; I agree, and that is why I hope this discussion will be very short.
Where unhappily the difference does arise, I respectfully submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in thinking that a quasi-judicial decision of the Minister would be more satisfactory than a judicial decision of the courts. There really is no more to it than that. That there will be few instances we have on the authority of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). I submit that the matter is right as it stands, and I hope that it will not prolong the deliberations unduly.

Mr. Paget: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him a question, as we now have the advantage of having heard a lawyer from the other side of the House? Can he tell me what on earth this Amendment does? Why is the position different if we have the Amendment than if we did not?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me a question which does not arise out of the speech I made, which was purely a comment on the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). But, since the hon. and learned Gentleman makes the point, I do not know that I am the person who ought to be called on to answer it, any more than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir Geoffrey Hutchison), who is much more distinguished than I, and who is sitting besides me. I apprehend that it would be possible in any event for them to make conditions, and, of course, it is right to say that these conditions are qualified by the concluding words of the Amendment. The conditions which now can be made are conditions that must be "expedient to impose for securing the intended relief from congestion or over-population."

Mr. Hale: I would not have intervened in this matter at all had I not found myself in complete disagreement with what everyone on both sides of the House had said. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has now stated, and stated in full, precisely the


point we were discussing for three-quarters of an hour on the previous Amendment. No one has suggested, and no one could suggest, that there is anything in any Act of Parliament to prevent the exporting authority from laying down conditions. Of course, everybody agrees with the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), but it is going to limit the powers instead of extending them.

Mr. Sparks: The local authority associations are perfectly satisfied with this, and I assume they know what they are talking about.

Mr. Hale: I do not see why my hon. Friend should make that assumption at all. We have had hours of debate, in which eminent counsel on both sides have argued about this form of words, and now I am told that some people are satisfied with the Amendment which in all probability they have not read.

Mr. Sparks: I did not say anything about the urban councils; I said that the local authority associations concerned ill this matter were satisfied.

Mr. Hale: I am happy to hear it. It is encouraging to know someone is satisfied. I am not.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is not the short answer this—and I know the hon. Gentleman wants the short answer—that since Clause 3 specifically empowers the Minister to make conditions, if there was no enabling power for the authority to make conditions it might be held they would otherwise be excluded from so doing?

Mr. Hale: I do not think the hon. Gentleman thinks that. He really must not boast of brevity if he gets up and claims the virtue of brevity in saying nothing. My hon. and learned Friend put a specific question to him.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have answered it.

Mr. Hale: May I remind him that he has said what I have been saying throughout the whole of the discussion, but which was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman? Once we set out and particularise the matters upon which a local authority is empowered by the Statute to make

agreements, we are really virtually saying that they will not have any other power, because we cannot have it both ways.
Let me put the matter quite simply. Either this Clause means something or it does not; in other words, either the local authorities have got power to impose conditions before this Clause was inserted, which I say they have and must have, to impose any conditions they like, or not. There is nothing in this Bill that is compulsory. The Minister has no power to make the Oldham Corporation build in Yorkshire, and the Oldham Corporation will only build in Yorkshire when the conditions laid down by the Corporation are agreed to.
One hon. Member was talking as if the receiving districts could be forced to build houses for the exporting districts. There is nothing compulsory about it; it is a matter for the two councils to agree their conditions. But this specifies the powers and limits the powers. We have got it at last, after two hours, in which the Minister has sat there and stubbornly resisted any suggestion that there was any limitation of powers of industrial operation. Now, we have it from the hon. Member for Hertford, who speaks with great authority and whose reputation is very high in these matters.
I must say that there is a very real question whether we ought not to consider a Motion for the adjournment of the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton pressed many times on this issue that we should have some assistance from the Law Officers of the Crown, and we have had none. We were told that everything was clear, and we were also told a little coyly by the Minister that the information he had got was sufficient to convince him, and he evidently thought it should also convince learned counsel, that on the whole the conditions imposed were sufficient, but he never told us where he got the information. I can sympathise with him in his reluctance to consult the Law Officers on matters of law; in certain circumstances, he might think of getting the information elsewhere. But we ought to be told, and we ought to be entitled to judge.
I come to the second point, so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). With


very great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), who speaks with authority, I entirely disagree with him on this matter. It may very well be that in London there are the happiest relations between local authorities, but if my hon. Friend had been associated with a Bill to extend the boundaries of a county borough or a city, he would have found that it is very difficult to get local authorities to agree. He would find that they fight like two Kilkenny cats.
What are we doing on this? One of the terms that must be inevitable on this is the one vital term that a receiving authority will accommodate the overspill population of an exporting authority. It is perfectly obvious that an agreement may come about like that. We ate almost getting back to the old cases which produced more litigation in this country than anything before—the settlement of the "border" areas. We shall be in the difficulty of saying whether somebody is an "overspill" or not. Take the case of a man and wife from Oldham who are put in Yorkshire. The man dies and the wife sends for her sons living elsewhere and wants them to maintain her there. At once we get a row. This is not accommodating the overspill: it is fetching people from London. It really is not right to say that there is no likelihood of trouble.
I should have thought that, on a matteir of this kind, this would be a question preeminently for decision by the Minister. He will say, "Look here, this is all right. This is a bona fideacceptance of another member of the family, and we shall regard this as an overspill." The hon. Member for Clapham cannot have it both ways. If one bases the argument on the proposition that on the whole the local authorities are likely to agree—and they are, on the whole—then there is really no necessity for the provision that the Minister can impose a penalty.
The Minister has power to withhold grants—and therefore we have come to this position. There will be an annual contribution from the exporting authority to the receiving authority in reduction of their rateable charged in respect of these housing demands. If that is so, what is the position? Cannot the exporting authority rightly say, "We are giving

six months' notice and we are not satisfied."
As I understand it, they can go to the courts and the whole tenor and meaning of the Bill is that it is a permissive Bill, designed to extend the powers of agreeing with the Minister. We have agreed to that proposition and then, quite suddenly, for an incredible reason, it is said on this most important matter, "We will not give the Minister these powers at all. We will leave this to whatever the law may be." But when the Lord Chancellor has raised his tricorn hat three times, this ordinary law does replace what was called the ordinary law three weeks ago. Therefore, I say that this is a serious matter administratively.
Virtually speaking, not one speech from either side of the House has commended this Clause. So we have the position that no one thinks anything of the Clause itself. Everyone agrees that these powers ought to exist. Everyone agrees that the powers ought to be exercised, and that the exporting authority should be entitled to lay down conditions. But, apart from some legal advice from some legal associates, no one says that the Clause is right; not one speaker from either side of the House. They all say that they like the idea, and are rather glad to have it made clear that the exporting authority can do what everyone knew it could.

Mr. Sparks: But they did not think so.

Mr. Hale: Will someone tell me why they did not think so? Where in all the statutes of the realm is there anything which prevents a local authority making conditions before it makes payments out of rates? Is it suggested that there is limitation, and that an exporting authority cannot lay down conditions except within the ambit of this Clause?

Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Member appreciates that there is the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. This Bill arises from it. In that Act there is power for a local authority to arrange for industrial development and to purchase land. A local authority would have to be satisfied, before it agreed to export its population, that under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 there Would be adequate facilities for industrial development on land within the ownership of the local authority.

Mr. Hale: That is not facing up to the problem. This is not a problem of the provision of new factories; it is a problem of creating finance. Oldham, as I have said before, is a mass of factory buildings, long since unsuitable for the workers in them. I am making no attack on the owners. There are three-storey mills with rickety floors and the operatives work mules made in 1895 in conditions of heat, disturbance and strain which should not be tolerated. Oldham has no way of remedying this.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment in dealing with conditions in Oldham in detail.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Hale: We are discussing the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, giving what has been described as limited powers to the relief of over-congestion, and I am, of course, making the point that if we insert this Clause we cut out any chance of industrial development. However, I think I have traversed the ground. But it is really a serious matter when the Minister makes an assertion three-quarters of an hour ago and it is completely repudiated by two of his hon. and learned Friends in the course of the next Amendment. It is a matter on which we should have some more information, and one on which would should have the advice of a Law Officer.

Mr. Bing: I think the House has perhaps rather forgotten, and perhaps we have not said enough about the persistence of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who has achieved what some of my hon. Friends have not been able to do, and that is to secure an Amendment to the Bill. That is, in view of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, a far greater achievement than some realise. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has secured the approval of the local authority associations, although I do not know whether I would not have preferred his original form of words to those chosen by the Minister. In Committee the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Acton contained the phrase "subject to such conditions as may appear to them to be expedient to impose." That seems a far better phrase than the very limited one now included.
I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). I happen to come, not from an exporting area, but a receiving one, and I should like, in view of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) and some other remarks made in Committee, to say that we welcome anyone who comes in from outside. It is a matter of personal regret, although not political regret, because it made no difference, that my hon. Friend who is chairman of the housing committee of the L.C.C. put his housing estate near my constituency, although not within its borders. Yet we can see from Hornchurch the benefits conferred on a neighbouring district by his activities. One of our difficulties is that what we want to secure is certainty. What the local authorities want to know—if they come to an agreement—is what these terms are.
We ought to ask, "Does this make this matter more certain?" I agree completely with what the hon. Member for Clapham said, that there will not be any exporting authority seeking to impose conditions if there is not an agreement first, and if it has not been decided first that those two authorities are going to get together and make the arrangement. Therefore, at first sight it may be a little academic to ask, "What powers ought one to give to the exporting authority in order to make certain that the things they should be doing are carried out?"
I should like to see an exporting authority getting some powers because, unless an exporting authority has some such power as this, they are less inclined to make use of the Bill. One of the dangers of this Bill is that it will not be made much use of at all. Therefore, one of the most important things is to see how far we can strengthen it so that it can be made use of.
It is to that aspect of the Clause that we ought to address ourselves. The difficulty I see in relation to it is that occasionally councils change their political complexions. Now, as things are going at the moment, they will be likely to change their complexions in a progressive disrection. Therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite may be quite right in their calculation that there is no need to make any provision for any councils in the future having a more conservative trend.
Unfortunately, generally speaking a Conservative council is less likely to make an agreement to receive into its areas people who come from the overcrowded areas of the big cities. That being so, there always is the danger, if one can conceive of a council which originally had a Labour majority having a Conservative majority, of making use of some such provision as this to haggle about the conditions imposed. It is for that reason it is so unfortunate that we have these limiting words.
Why should we not alter this Clause in the same way as I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, when he answered, "Oh well, that is not the Amendment." It might not have been the Amendment on the last occasion we were discussing this form of words. But this is his Amendment now and not our Amendment, and as it is his Clause, perhaps he can tell us why he should not improve the words and try to get back to the simplicity of the language of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, whose Amendment was far better as originally drafted than the words which have now come out of the legislative mill of the right hon. Gentleman?
Why should he not avoid the legal difficulties, avoid the pitfalls which are foreseen by his hon. Friends below the gangway? Why should he not merely leave out of his Amendment the last line and a half——
to impose for securing the intended relief from congestion or over-population"—
leaving the Clause in the form which is declaratory of what would be the rights of the exporting authority anyway? Why should not the Clause be left to read:
An authority, when giving an undertaking under this section, may lay down, as conditions to which payment of the contributions undertaken to be made is to be subject, such conditions as it may appear to that authority to be expedient.
Why not leave those general words?

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: To limit it merely to overpopulation.

Mr. Bing: The hon. and learned Gentleman says, because it is necessary to limit it merely to over-population, if I understood him aright. I will give way if he wishes to correct me. We would hear him better if he were to stand up. But surely this will leave those autho-

rities who, for some change of political sympathy, suddenly want to interfere with an arrangement which has been made, with infinite opportunity for haggling and infinite opportunity for argument. They will say that this condition which has been made is not directed towards overpopulation or overcrowding, but that this particular condition is directed to securing that there shall be a proper export of industry.
Why on earth should there be these limiting words? I am not so much in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who says all the time that if only we had the Law Officers here we could solve these problems. With respect, that has not always been the experience of the House in recent months when such problems have been submitted to them. But it would be interesting to know whether they have the same opinion as the other hon. and learned Members opposite who have expressed the view that these are limiting words. We really ought to know where we stand in regard to this Amendment.
It is really absurd that we should have to go on arguing about this matter all through the night merely because we cannot get any authoritative opinion. Will the Minister get up and say whether his supporters are mistaken or whether they are right, and that he has put down the Amendment under a misapprehension? I think it is particularly unfair on my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) who devised an excellent Amendment to deal with a real difficulty which all of us who have had any experience of this sort of thing know exists and requires to be dealt with. It is absolutely essential that both authorities should be quite clear as to what the terms are, but let the Minister at least be clear what his Bill means, and let us hear from him the meaning of it.

Mr. Marples: We had a long discussion on this Clause in Committee, and my right hon. Friend and myself are both grateful to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who was in charge of the Bill for the Opposition on that occasion, and is also tonight, for the helpful words he spoke. He tried to give us a more explicit explanation of these matters. I do hope we can now get on with this Bill, because some authorities


are already carrying on negotiations and, unless we get this Bill quickly, it will not help them to deal with the urgent problem of housing the people.
The hon. Members who were in the Committee upstairs are all agreed, and the only diversity of opinion seems to be between those Members of the Committee upstairs and the various lawyers who have tonight taken part in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked what the Amendment was about and whether it was necessary. He said that in his opinion it meant nothing. That is the point he advanced.

Mr. Paget: I have had two various opinions from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). He first told me that it was a limitation, that is to say, that it precluded the councils from doing the things they might otherwise do. He then changed his mind and said that it authorised them to do things they otherwise might not do. Which is the Government's view? Is it an Amendment to preclude the councils from doing things or to authorise them to do them?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Before my hon. Friend replies, may I say a word to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because that is not a true exposition of what I said? What I said was that as Clause 3 expressly gave power to the Minister to make conditions, unless there was a permissive power in Clause 4 it might be——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already made a speech.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was not making a speech. I was endeavouring to correct the misapprehension which the hon. and learned Gentleman created, no doubt unintentionally, in regard to my intervention. There was no inconsistency at all in what I said.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Marples: If I might intervene for a moment, though not as a lawyer, and continue my own speech, I will deal with the point which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton made and which was not made by anybody else. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Clause meant nothing. I always

bow to the lawyers, with their immense knowledge, and forensic skill, but I must here point out that, if this Clause is not in the Bill, the exporting authority will have no power to make contributions to the receiving authority.
What does the Clause mean? We are told that it means nothing. [Interruption.] Well, I made a note at the time, and that is what I understood was said. Without it, local authorities could not make contributions and so, I think, it is rather necessary for it to be in the Bill. When moving the Amendment, I explained that this is a voluntary agreement between local authorities, and different from the agreement with the Minister.
It is not necessary for the two local authorities to go to a court. They may go to an arbitrator, but the Minister is in a more powerful position if he is asked voluntarily than if he imposes himself upon them as an arbitrator. He is more likely to get smooth working of the Bill under such circumstances if there is a dispute. If he does not impose himself upon the local authorities to act, as it were, in a legal capacity, then he can use his influence in trying to bring the two parties together. He could use his influence under what I might term the "old boy" basis.

Mr. Benn: A little earlier the Parliamentary Secretary laid it down that no contribution could be made without the authority of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman forces himself down the throats of the exporting authorities at the beginning, and yet he appears to be so reluctant to appear again. If he is called upon to give an opinion earlier on, he should also holf himself available to deal with difficulties.

Mr. Marples: Under this particular Clause, the exporting authority can make a contribution wider in extent than the Minister can make under the terms of the Bill. Therefore, if they can go far and wide, it would be wholly improper for him to set himself up as a judge in a contract which was in dispute. I hope that, having had a lengthy discussion during Committee stage, and again on Report on this matter, the House will now come to a conclusion.

Mr. Paget: I have tried to put the point that, while we appreciate the


Minister has been trying to help, the Amendment—not the Clause—means precisely nothing. Having the Minister acting as arbitrator may be of great value, and hearing that may have justified this debate; because, if all local authorities know that the Minister is prepared to act as arbitrator on their agreements, I think that many of them will take advantage of the offer that has been made and thereby save themselves a great deal of litigation.
But, as to the actual meaning, I had two different views from those held by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). He said that this is an empowering Clause, and previously he said that it is a limiting Clause. In my very humble submission, it is neither. Let us just consider the matter for a moment.
In Clause 3 we are authorising the Minister to make a payment from the Exchequer. Now when we authorise a Minister to make payment he can only do it precisely subject to the terms of the authorisation, and can only lay down conditions we authorise him to lay down. That is because he is using Exchequer money. Conditions are laid down, as they have to be laid down for the use of Exchequer money, in the Bill, but that does not become, by implication, limitation upon other people contracting with their own money. For example to put down conditions which A would like to impose upon B and B would like to accept from A is a proposition so ludicrous that I do not feel any hon. and learned Gentleman would really consider it.
We have therefore the position that this Clause provides for an agreement for payment by local authority A to local authority B and local authority A can put on any conditions—as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out. They might be conditions quite outside this Bill. Yet the Clause does not authorise them to impose any conditons.
As to other limitations, we might say that the effect of this Clause, by specifying conditions to relieve congestion or overpopulation, excludes other limitations. But again we have this difference of opinion, because that is not the view of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said there might be conditions not only not for the relief of congestion and over-

population, but right outside this Bill. That is what he said five minutes ago. And I should have thought it was plainly so. If we satisfy certain acts by implication, we exclude other acts which would require authorisation. We do not exclude other acts which do not require authorisation at all. Since, where A makes a payment to B, it requires no authorisation to anyone, but imposes conditions which are acceptable to B, we do not exclude anything.
Therefore, we have talked for something like an hour and a quarter on an Amendment which, in my humble submission, means absolutely nothing at all. It makes not the slightest difference to this Bill whether it is excluded or included. I honestly feel that—and I am sorry about this, but perhaps it is the arrogance of a lawyer—if the Government had had the advantage of real legal advice on interpretation, which is a highly technical job requiring a lot of training, we might not have taken so long over an Amendment, the inclusion or exclusion of which makes no difference to anyone at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(PROVISION FOR PARTICIPATION UNDER ORDER OF THE MINISTER.)

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, leave out from "Act," to "is." in line 29.
The Amendment is to leave out the words in parenthesis——
being action for the taking of which by an authority eligible to participate provision could be made, with the authorisation of the Minister under subsection (1) of the last preceding section if needed, by an agreement to which the council of a receiving district were parties.
This is a rather technical matter and is one of some complexity. I had put down certain Amendments to the preceding Clause which, coupled with this one, would have produced even greater clarity, but they have not been selected. It is not for me to comment on that, but it makes it more difficult for me to explain the purpose which I and my hon. and learned Friend had in mind.
Clause 9 says:
If it appears to the Minister that any action required for the purposes of town development within the meaning of this Act…is prevented or hampered by inability or unwillingness of the council of the receiving district to take that action or to concur in providing by agreement for its being taken…


Then it gives the Minister power to make certain orders enabling action to be taken in accordance with the somewhat detailed provisions in Clause 8.
Clause 8 catalogues a whole number of limited spheres of activity in respect of which powers are given. I am bound to say that I do not know why all this catalogue of extraordinary powers is put into this Bill. I do not understand why there is such a lot of extraordinary verbiage and why the whole thing has not been done in a couple of sentences. I do not think the House would have objected to a general authorisation of the Minister to take such steps as he thought reasonably necessary to enable local authorities to agree on a scheme of housing development. Why it is limited, cross-limited, counter-limited and referred to Clause by Clause, I just do not know.
The first action which is authorised by Clause 8 is this:
The kinds of action for which provision may be so made are—
(a) a party's acting on behalf of another party in doing any thing which apart from this subsection that other party could lawfully employ an independent contractor to do, with or without power to the party so acting to employ another person or authority to do it;
I defy anybody to tell me what that means. What the words "apart from this subsection" mean I really do not know, because I can find nothing in the subsection which precludes anybody doing anything. I put down an Amendment on that point, but it has not been called.
One can spend a lot of time on this, but I do not think the Amendment is sufficiently important for me to waste the time of the Committee on it. It is really a drafting Amendment, and all it says is this: There is no point in putting in this elaborate limitation upon the Minister's powers as regards the words in parenthesis in Clause 9. It says that all that can be done is this limited number of things which are specifically authorised in Clause 8. What is the use of the limitation? What is the sense of it? What is its result?
It will cause a vast amount of departmental work in the consideration of these limitations, a vast amount of research

and legal advice every time the Minister wants to do anything, additional complication and delay, and all to no purpose. I do not know why the Minister could not have risen five minutes ago and said that he was going to accept this Amendment. It adds to his powers—or it does so by implication in stopping the limitation of his powers. It does not detract from them by one iota. It merely takes out a foolish limitation which adds to the complexity of the Bill and adds to the difficulty of understanding it.
It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind that in no circumstances whatever will he accept an Amendment. We on these benches have put down a number of very reasonable and modest Amendments, and I think we have moved them as quickly as we can, and I do not believe that there is anybody who does not realise that if they had been accepted the Bill would have been a better Bill. But there it is. I am moving this formally and briefly in the hope that we shall get some cooperative reply from the Minister.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.
This does seem to me to be a simple and helpful Amendment. The Clause reads:
If it appears to the Minister that any action required for the purposes of town development within the meaning of this Act… is prevented or hampered by unwillingness on the part of the council of the receiving district to take action…
then he may take action. If he is satisfied that this very desirable object is being impeded, does he not want to take action? Does he wish to have a whole series of highly technical limitations placed on his right to take action which he deems to be desirable in these most desirable circumstances? I really would urge him to free his hands, which by this Amendment we seek to do.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham West (Mr. Hale) urged me to accept this Amendment, and then rather ungenerously said that I had not accepted any Amendments during these proceedings. The last hour and a quarter arose out of my generosity in accepting an Amendment by the hon. Member for Acton.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman must forgive his Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he had not been able to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), but that the Amendment would go a little way towards doing so.

Mr. Macmillan: But the hon. Member for Acton, in contradistinction to his hon. Friends, supported the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham West said that I ought to have risen five minutes ago and said that I would accept the Amendment. It is the usual procedure for a Minister to wait until an Amendment is moved before saying whether he will accept it or not. The hon. Gentleman must be getting exhausted by his non-stop performances, for these are two unusual mistakes considering his great skill in the particular tasks he sets himself on these evenings. He went on to ask why I did not take the simple words to empower the Minister to facilitate the work of the local authorities who agree. But Clause 9 deals with the cases where local authorities do not agree. That is why it is differently drawn from the cases where they do agree.
This is a Clause which I hope will be rarely used. It is a power which is kept because it is necessary to have some reserve power to prevent what I hope will never happen—some recalcitrant and foolish authority being unwilling to play a part in the arrangements. If there is a reserve power to be used it is right to be hedged about by limitations. What is the difference between what the Amendment would do and what the Clause would do? The Amendment would go wider.
The Clause empowers the Minister in these circumstances to make an order contrary to the wishes of the receiving authority, and it limits the power to take action to the conditions laid down in paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (1). The Amendment would open it up so that the Minister could have power to do all kinds of other things. It is only reasonable that the power taken should be limited to those main purposes and functions which would fall on the receiving district—housing, water, sewerage and site development.
There are all kinds of other things which the councils of receiving districts will have to provide as time passes in

connection with new development, but I do not think it would be right that the Minister should have the power under this Clause to direct them to do things which are not strictly for the purpose of town development. There are such things as community centres and open spaces, secondary things, which will come along later, as the community develops, but this Clause is not intended to give the Minister those powers at that stage, but simply to have this power in reserve in order that they should be able to do these things as laid down in paragraphs (a) to (g)of Clause 8, which are the main items of development.

Mr. Bing: I do not wish to take up much time, as there are other important Amendments which will probably need a more prolonged discussion. I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister dealt with the matter, but the Parliamentary Secretary, in dealing with the previous Clause, produced a reason which he thought would guide us in regard to all the Amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this had been discussed at great length in the Committee and that we could not go on discussing the Bill much longer because the local authorities needed it very urgently. I am glad the Minister did not reproduce that argument. We should look very carefully at these Clauses, and particularly at the wording of this one.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Bill which he said himself he had inherited, and therefore there is no reason why we should not have taken a few days off the long Recess at Christmas to deal with this Measure, if it was so urgently needed by the local authorities. As for the long discussion upstairs, in that particular case it was less than a quarter of an hour, so that that argument does not commend itself to the House. I think we should address ourselves to the merits of all the Amendments and not to extraneous circumstances in regard to the Bill.
This is one of the Clauses in which the Minister has to use his discretion. The decision is to be the Minister's, so that the inclusion of limiting words is of no particular value in the sense that, once it appears so to the Minister, he decides and it will not be subject to outside decision. It is for him to make the decision, and he has discretion in the


matter. In these circumstances, as a gesture to the House and in an attempt to get on more quickly, I should have thought he would have agreed to the removal of the limiting words.
If he really does want to safeguard the local authorities, perhaps I may suggest, without anticipating the next Amendment on the Order Paper, that he should have a look at it, because it really does safe guard them far more adequately than these words which he has in mind. I hope that, if he has to eject one of the Amendments, he will, at least, give the local authorities the other one. If he has to make the thing so wide as it is as the Clause now stands, and if he is to be able to act when the local authority is unable, but not unwilling, to act, there is no reason why he should be so pernickety about——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now dealing with the next Amendment and not the one before the House.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have allowed myself to be diverted.
I hope that, in these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will for a moment reconsider his point of view on this matter and see if he cannot meet us. I do not think this Amendment is of very great importance, but it is one of the things upon which he might well give way, and, as a result, considerably improve the Bill.

Mr. Mikardo: I have had an enormous struggle since this Bill came out of the Standing Committee and was published to try to understand precisely what subsection (1) means. I am not a lawyer, and it seems to me that if a subsection is intelligible only to lawyers there must be something wrong. We chaps who are reasonably competent in understanding what words mean ought to be able to make some sense out of the wording of a Bill. If we cannot do so, it seems to me to be a reflection on the Bill.
This subsection consists of one sentence. It chances that today my younger daughter, being in the middle of her School Certificate examination, has had a paper on English language and has had to do some parsing and analysis. I pray to whatever powers there may be that the sentence she was given to parse and

analyse was not like the sentence which constitutes subsection (1), because this one sentence contains 285 words.
The sentence has in it 14 finite verbs, including one in ellipsis, which means that it has got a main clause and 13 subordinate clauses. In addition to these 14 finite verbs it has 24 others parts of verbs, such as infinitives, participles and gerunds—and in all conscience that does not make it easy to understand. What I want to know is, what would be the difference in meaning if the section in parenthesis were, as is suggested by the Amendment, taken out?
I listened very carefully to my three hon. and learned Friends and to the Minister, and in so far as I was able to get some glimmer of understanding into my lay mind on the matter, that glimmer came from the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—perhaps because he is a layman like myself. As I understood it, the effect of retaining the section in parenthesis would be that he would have to construe the term "purposes of town development within the meaning of this Act" rather more narrowly than he would otherwise if the section in parenthesis were taken out. If I am wrong in this interpretation I am quite sure I shall be forgiven; but if I am right in my interpretation I think it would be a pity that a limit should be placed upon this definition.
I thought that we were moving away from the jerry-building conception that all we had to do was to see to it that houses were shoved up. The Minister referred to community centres. They are one of the things which go to making up the full life. I thought we had got away from the bad old conditions and that it was the business of those who create towns not merely to make buildings where people may live and where people may work but where people may live a full life, and that involves including in the word "town and country planning" in this or any other Act the provision of things other than houses and industrial establishments.
If my understanding of what the right hon. Gentleman said is correct, it appears to me that the Clause will be better without this section in parenthesis, quite apart from the fact that it will be better through getting rid of six of the 14 verbs. That will make it easier to parse, easier


to analyse and easier to understand. On those grounds, and on the ground of the charity which the right hon. Gentleman may wish to show to colleagues not so learned in the law, I would have thought that he could take the view that he would lose nothing by accepting the Amendment.

12 midnight.

Mr. Hale: I feel that our patience and good temper are being imposed on by the Minister. I moved this Amendment in a few words. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wishes to make an observation, I will give way; but until he wishes to rise and do so, would he mind shutting up and letting me get on.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I never interrupted the hon. Member.

Mr. Hale: If the hon. Member does not wish to make an observation, perhaps he will behave himself. I moved this Amendment in a few words and made it clear that we were seeking to clarify, to widen, the powers of the Minister a little, and to free him from limitation which seemed to add difficulty to construction, and so on. The Minister replied. I challenge anyone who refers to his speech tomorrow with the fact that 95 per cent, of his observations had nothing to do with the matter. He made, at the end, a few pert observations in the form of misrepresentation of what I said, but he made it clear that he does not understand Clause 9. Apparently he is not even now familiar with the wording of it. The limitation is there, and it will not be affected by leaving out the words in parenthesis.
First, it has to appear to the Minister that the action required for the purpose of town development within the meaning of this Act is being frustrated by the unwillingness of a council. The matter is completely limited there. He seeks to add another limitation. We have dealt with this briefly. We have not had much courtesy or assistance.
This matter was raised tonight without any notice between the parties and, so far as I know, no intimation through the usual channels. It is said that the matter was put on the Order Paper to get discussion by some subterfuge. It is tragic that the Minister who puts the matter down makes a speech in which it is clear that he has not had time to prepare

an answer to the Amendment. We have tried to help. So far as I am concerned, unless any of my hon. Friends wish to speak, this is merely an attempt to help the Minister; but he refuses help. Therefore, I do not propose to press the matter further.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is an important Bill. I agree. It is rather a pity that it was kept on the stocks for six or seven months, and was then brought in at this stage. It will not make any difference to the Bill whether it passes through this particular stage at seven or eight o'clock in the morning. If we can discuss this matter with good temper, it cannot be suggested that the consumption of a minute or two here or there is of great importance. I have tried to help and the Minister will not have it, and in those circumstances I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Benn: I beg to move, in page 8, line 30, to leave out "inability or."
This is such an obvious Amendment that I feel certain the Minister will not accept it. I do not want to do him an injustice but, like my hon. Friend, I would not dream of pressing this beyond putting the point briefly. I hope we do not hear too much about the wastage of time because, as has been perfectly plain this evening, the amount of time which has been consumed in the interpretation of this Bill would far exceed the time of this House in trying to improve it. This seems to me a very clear Amendment. No doubt learned counsel will disagree about it. Some hon. Gentlemen have suggested it would be a good thing if we could have a Law Officer present. I am glad we have not got two Law Officers present, as it seems unlikely they would agree.
The Clause states:
If it appears to the Minister that any action… is prevented or hampered by inability or unwillingness of the council of the receiving district
they can do certain things. What on earth does "inability of the receiving district" mean? It could mean a variety of things. It could mean that they were unable to do it constitutionally and that under the statute which gave them their authority they had no power. That is not likely for obvious reasons. First of all this alludes to a local council that is having


difficulty in implementing an agreement, and if they could not do it constitutionally it would be apparent at the time of the agreement.
It certainly could not refer to them for another good reason, for if it did one would expect the Minister to have the right to give them the powers to do it. But from paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) we see that the Minister has powers to force them to do so. So constitutionally it cannot have anything to do with the inability of the receiving district council. It eventually has nothing to do with their financial powers, because if the council had not got the money one would expect the Minister to provide some grant, but from the remaining sections he is not intended to make a grant but an order.
This Clause and the phrase "prevented or hampered by inability or unwillingness" simply refers to the possible unwillingness of a council to take action. Why should it be extended to include "inability?" The whole basis of our discussions, and the Minister's reasoned speeches on the working of this Bill, is that there should be the very warmest good feeling between all the parties. I think the word "unwillingness" is a very generous word to use. It might be something far stronger. It might be fractious-ness, or stubborness. It might be the general desire of the receiving council to delay the thing.
It is really no use when a man is drowning, and has an inability or unwillingness to save himself, for the captain of a ship to be allowed to make an order that he has to save himself. That is not the normal method of life-saving, and I do not see that there is any object in having those two words in this Bill. Like my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I do not suppose there is any other hon. Member who wants to speak on it except possibly formally to second it.

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to second the Amendment.
I shall say very little in support of this Amendment because my hon. Friend has covered the ground very well indeed. It seems to me that the basic thing is one to which reference was made earlier in this debate, namely, that where it is at all possible, one wants to get joint action between the exporting and receiving autho-

rities on what the Parliamentary Secretary called the "old boy" basis. I take it he meant by cordial agreement between the two authorities without anybody laying down the law.
Wherever that is possible it is clearly desirable, though it seems to me that in the case of a receiving authority which was willing to do the job but, for reasons beyond its control, was unable to do it—perhaps it did not have adequate technical staff or perhaps it was short in its steel allocation or perhaps there was some other physical reason for which, with the best will in the world, it was willing but just could not do the job—I should not have thought it would have required an order by the Minister to get it to agree to take help from the exporting authority. Broadly, that is what this complex Clause amounts to, now that I have had another look at its 285 words. It says that the Minister may direct the receiving authority to take assistance from or even be replaced in totofor the specific purpose by the exporting authority.
Here these words "inability or unwillingness" in one part postulate the existence of a receiving authority which has entered into an arrangement and is anxious to honour the commitments into which it has entered. Supposing it comes along and says "We are anxious to do this but we have not got the steel" and the exporting authority says, "We have some spare steel, we will let you have it." Or suppose the receiving authority says, "We would like to do this but we are terribly understaffed in our surveyor's department" and the exporting authority says, "We are a bit tight too but we will lend you a couple of surveyors for a few weeks." Is it seriously envisaged that the receiving authority, wanting to do the job, will say, "We will not take your staff or your steel. The Minister will have to make an order to compel us to do a job which we are willing to do"? The plain fact of the matter is that the receiving authority is either willing or unwilling, and the question of ability does not enter into the matter at all.
The Minister has to decide. The Minister has to make difficult decisions under this Bill. It is comparatively easy to make a subjective judgment about willingness because it is not difficult to see where a chap is obstructing, but here the Minister has to make a subjective judgment about competency. I should


have thought that was a task from which the Minister would have been delighted to free himself. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that the Minister ought to be glad to accept this Amendment and, if he is not, he does not deserve that we should try to shed the light of our knowledge upon him any further.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Macmillan: Throughout the Bill the majority of the Amendments moved have tried to increase the power of the Minister. This one is rather different from the others; in fact, its purpose is to decrease the Minister's power. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) very courteously asked me the real reason for having these additional words. I think the reason is a simple one, and it is very much connected with what the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) spoke about. Clause 9, I repeat, is the power held in reserve. It is a Clause which it is necessary to have —though I hope it will not often be necessary to use it—because if we did not have these powers a purely obstructive or mistaken attitude adopted by a council might lead to great delay.
It is not, therefore, a power which we shall use a great deal, but one which we shall have in reserve. If one could conceive the scale of some of these agreements and the degree of technical knowledge, the staff and the power necessary to deal with a very large undertaking in the way of water, sewerage, roads and the rest, it might well be that a county district or a district inside a county, a receiving authority, might have perhaps a rather undue sense of its capacity to take on a fairly large-scale job which really in the opinion of the Minister, as advised by his officials, was quite beyond them.
Therefore, the purpose of having these additional words is to see that this reserve power should relate not only to the willingness of the receiving authority to undertake the task, but that there should be some power to see that the work is done by the county or exporting authority in the case of it being really clear that the character of the development was beyond the power of organisation which the receiving authority had at its command. Therefore, I think these words will give a little wider power and will be useful in carrying out the schemes.

Mr. Paget: What the Minister has said seems to me to be a most reasonable explanation as to the necessity of these words. We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will find that when we get a reasonable explanation and get our questions answered we will agree with him.

Mr. Benn: In view of the very courteous and very full explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 24 to 38, and to insert:
(4) An order shall not be made under or by virtue of this section unless—

(a) a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, or
(b) in the case of an order under subsection (1) of this section, assent to the making of the order has been given by the council of the receiving district, or
(c) in the case of a varying or revoking order under subsection (2) of this section, assent to the making of the order has been given by the council of the receiving district and by the authority on whose application the original order was made.
This is really a drafting Amendment. During the Committee stage of the Bill I accepted an Amendment which altered Clause 9 and made it subject to affirmative resolution instead of the negative resolution. That had the effect of making the Clause read:
An order made under or by virtue of this section… shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid.
Therefore, there was a contradiction in the drafting. The opportunity has been taken to get rid of that mistake and of the existing paragraph (c) of subsection (4) which provides that an order under subsection (3) is subject to affirmative resolution unless both the council of the receiving district and of the participating authority assent.
It was not necessary to repeat that because that does not operate unless the council of the receiving district is a dissenting party. This merely redrafts in, I hope, rather clearer and more simple language a mistake which resulted from accepting an Amendment without altering some of the words at the beginning of the Clause.

Mr. Paget: I should like to congratulate the Minister on this Amendment and to say how much I wish that similar drafting Amendments could have been applied to the rest of this Bill. Here, the right hon. Gentleman has had the task of adding something, and he has used about half the number of words of the previous drafting, and he has got those words in a simple and comprehensible order. The contrast between this simple, easy, direct Amendment, and, not only that which it replaces, but almost every other part of this Bill, is really striking. One cannot fail to notice it, and I would hope that the gentleman who drafted this Amendment might be allowed to go through this Bill and reduce its terrible jargon into intelligible form.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I only rise to say, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who apologises for having left the Chamber to get some food, that we on this side are grateful to the Minister for bringing this Amendment forward. It is in line with the wishes expressed by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage. The Minister has shown great courtesy and, I think, great wisdom in accepting our suggestion, and, in these circumstances, with this very good, clarifying Amendment, he has more than kept his promise and we thank him sincerely.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO AUTHORITIES PARTICIPATING FROM THE EXCHEQUER AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES BENEFITED.)

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 10, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(4) Similarly such a council may with the approval of the Minister cease making contributions to such a participating authority if it appears to them that the conditions laid down are not being observed by that authority.
This new subsection raises some of the issues which we have already discussed. It tries to deal with the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) raised in connection with the limited, permissive powers which have been added to Clause 4. For the benefit of those hon. Members who have not had the privilege of serving on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, I would explain that we are talking

about Clause 10 and that in the first place one might say that even the side note is not clearly intelligible. It reads:
Contributions to authorities participating from the Exchequer and local authorities benefited.
That is, I suggest, certainly not clear, but the purpose of my Amendment is to establish that a participating council, if it can satisfy the Minister—and the Clause is quite clear about that—and it is implicit—[Interruption.]I would ask the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Water-house) to cease interrupting. I am trying to address the House, and I would formally report to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have been interrupted by the right hon. and gallant Member. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wish to speak? I understand that he has no desire to take part in our discussion. He does not wish to rise, but to make some remark from yards away across the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I hope that the Amendment will be discussed and that these interruptions across the Floor of the House will cease.

Mr. Hale: I understand there is no question of discussing the Amendment. The right hon. and gallant Member is seeking to conduct a conversation—and doing it at this moment, repeating the offence. While I am addressing the House I shall demand the proper courtesies usually extended to an hon. Member who is speaking. If I am to be constantly interrupted by this sort of observation which the right hon. and gallant Member himself says has no relevance and which he says has nothing to do with the Amendment, I must claim your protection of my right to continue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the time of the House will not be taken up by this back-chat between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Hale: I wish to say at once that I resent the suggestion that, in appealing to the Chair for protection against interruption, I was taking part in back-chat. I was addressing the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was not the meaning I was attaching to the term "back-chat." The meaning I was attaching to it was that if hon. Members


wish to say anything in the House they should get up and say what they have to say. Otherwise, they should give a hearing to the hon. Member in possession of the Floor.

Mr. Hale: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I misunderstood your term. I was claiming the courtesy of the House, as I am entitled to do.
In this Amendment we are seeking to provide a small additional administrative subsection which will make the Clause quite clear. After all, one of the very necessary facts about this Bill is to create in the local authorities complete confidence that the machinery will work and work to their benefit. No participating authority is likely to enter into long-term undertakings with a grant of money unless they are completely satisfied that they can ensure the purpose of that grant will be carried out. They must be satisfied that there is an effective remedy available to them if it is not carried out.
What we are saying with reference to the powers contained in Clause 10 is this: the participating authority report to the Minister a set of facts. They say: "We are frustrated from carrying out this scheme by the action of another authority, and we are asking leave to discontinue making payment we have undertaken to make." That is really perfectly reasonable. I cannot think of any reason why this little Amendment might not be accepted.
The Minister may say this can be done in some other way. But it is really necessary to inspire confidence. It is necessary that the town clerk of a county borough concerned shall be able to report to his committee on a set of facts that they are entering into this on specific terms, and if those terms are not carried out they will not pay. They can go straight to the Minister and say that if this is not carried out, they will not go on with the payment. Surely that is sensible? I think the Amendment is a useful addition to the provisions of the Clause, making for greater clarity and creating more confidence in the authority concerned.

Mr. Benn: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the Minister would do well to consider this Amendment sympathetically. I have not mentioned my own constituency in the House today, but I

should like to talk about it now for a few moments. Bristol is a very overcrowded city, and as a county borough it might easily be affected as an exporting authority when the machinery of this Bill comes into operation. Under these circumstances, with a very large waiting list of people awaiting houses, it is quite possible that a lot of money paid by Bristol ratepayers will be used in the way this Clause contemplates in financing a receiving district to provide accommodation for industrial sites and so on. It seems only reasonable that the Minister should take as great an interest in the safeguarding of the ratepayers' money as he does in his statutory function of safeguarding the money he gets from the national Exchequer.
12.30 a.m.
Nothing will create more ill-feeling among participating authorities than the belief that if they have made this agreement with a receiving district to do certain things they cannot get out of it except by taking what may amount to legal action. As I understand it—I may be wrong; I am not a lawyer—the whole machinery of the Bill is intended to work under the benign, sympathetic consideration of a good Minister who wants to make it work. If the Minister himself tries to obstruct the working of the Bill there will be little hope of it coming to anything. Throughout all the Clauses we see power given to the Minister to give his approval to grants made by him and grants made by local authorities, to set up joint boards, to make orders and so on.
Great power has been given to the Minister, and it is mainly power of a positive kind. The only power which the Minister reserves to himself of a punitive kind is in the Clause which we considered the other day dealing with penalties if the participating authorities do not fulfil the conditions that the Minister lays down. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) objected to the use of the word "penalty". He said in the course of another debate that it would be wiser to be more sympathetic, and I agree with him. But here is a case where the ratepayers' money is affected by the grants made by one authority to another. If there is a suspicion—one can think of many examples —that the grants made by the Bristol


Council to a receiving district were being misused, a rumour of that kind could create a great deal of ill-feeling, and without good feeling the machinery of this Measure cannot work.
This Amendment does not suggest that the exporting authority should have the power to cease the contributions just on its own. We do not believe that is right. We do not ask that the exporting authority should have the same rights as the Minister himself has, because we know that if the Minister is objective in his approach to the whole matter he will want to see the Bill work. That would be his main concern, whereas among local authorities there may be differences of opinion which could obstruct the working of the Bill.
What we do say—and I submit that this is a reasonable request—is that just as an authority has to ask the permission of the Minister to make a grant, if there is failure to fulfil the conditions laid down the exporting authority may seek the permission of the Minister to cease making a grant. There is the safeguard that the Minister is called in.
It is often said when this type of problem has arisen that the local authorities do not want the Minister to interfere. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that local authorities got on very well with each other and that they did not want the Minister to interfere. No one was more pleased than I was to hear the optimistic forecast of the good work between different local authorities, but in the event of something going wrong it is quite right that machinery should be laid down in the Bill whereby the authority that wants to take action should first of all have to appeal to the Minister.
This is a permissive Clause. It does not say that the Minister himself can force a local authority to stop paying a contribution. All it says is that if a row blows up between two local authorities, and a row of this kind might prejudice the whole opportunity of success, the Minister should have the right to be called in in the early stage. That is all it says, and nothing more. If we leave the Clause without this provision, then the row may brew on for some time—if I may mix my metaphors—and

all the good will upon which the scheme is based may have evaporated long before there is arbitration. I ask the Minister to consider this Amendment. If he does not like its wording he can redraft it and introduce it in another place, but I do hope he will give it sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in moving this Amendment said that it was similar in some respects to a previous Amendment we had discussed, and indeed that is so. The arguments in the previous Amendment apply to this one also, although this one is slightly different in some respects to the previous one. The main argument against the point of view put forward by the hon. Members for Oldham, West and Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is that these contributions which are made to the receiving authority by the exporting authority are somewhat different from those made by the Minister, because they are made under an agreement freely arrived at.
It will be the case that the local authorities can, if they want, appoint an outside arbitrator or ask the Minister to arbitrate, in which case, as the Clause stands, they have the option to ask the Minister to be the arbitrator, which, in effect, is what the Amendment seeks to do. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Mr Gibson) is right and they do not want the Minister to arbitrate, it would impair the harmonious relations necessary for the working of this Bill to have it imposed on them.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the agreements between the local authorities are voluntarily entered into and that everything, including his blessing, is granted by the Minister. Surely if he has given his blessing it makes it essential with these agreements that the Minister should take an interest in them in the future.

Mr. Marples: I am coming to that in a moment. There is a certain amount of doubt about this matter. There are arguments for and against. What my right hon. Friend has in mind is the principle that the Bill will not work without the local authorities wanting it to work. If anything is imposed on the local authorities against their will there is no hope of the Bill doing any good. It may be


some local authority—perhaps an exporting authority, or perhaps a receiving district council—would object if they were imposed on by the Minister and were forced to accept his arbitration.

Mr. Hale: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me for a moment, what is worrying me is that when——

Mr. Macmillan: Let my hon. Friend finish his argument.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman has given way. Let him give way. He is one of Her Majesty's Ministers, and the right hon. Gentleman should not treat him as an office boy in this way. He has given way courteously, and I am accepting his courtesy. Why should we have a protest from somebody I do not know. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that councils are freely able to make agreements, but exactly an half hour ago he was saying that they have no powers to do anything of the sort and that provision will be made, in response to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), to enable them to do so. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Marples: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. No one can more successfully demolish an argument that has never been raised than the hon. Gentleman, and he can do it more humorously than any other hon. Member; no one can do it and be more amusing, and that is saying a great deal. The Minister does not want to impose conditions on local authorities, and I think the entire House would be with me in that respect. There is some point in the suggestion made and it may smooth the working of the Bill if the suggestion that appears here was to be adopted. Quite honestly, the balance of the argument may be one way or it may be the other, but I do not think it is worth while accepting the Amendment unconditionally, because I am not sure it is quite right.
What I do ask the hon. Gentleman to do is to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance that we will try and think seriously on the arguments advanced whether it would be better, but I must make it quite clear that, at this stage, we do not say that it is better. We would like to have a look at it and, perhaps in another place, introduce an Amendment

on those lines. Very earnest considerations will be given to the arguments put forward, and that is the assurance which is given. The balance of the argument may be one way or the other.

Mr. Paget: I want to put in a very small argument to join those which are to be given serious consideration. The Minister, when he began, said that this was similar to the Amendment on Clause 4, but, of course, it is very much narrower. Under Clause 4, we could have provided for arbitration right at the beginning. Here, the matter has to be agreed with the Minister, who has to approve, and it only emerges at the end. Being a much narrower point, we hoped it would be very effective.

Mr. Mikardo: I hope that, as this matter is being considered with the object which the Parliamentary Secretary described, consideration will not be befogged by misunderstandings about the intervention of the Minister in the functions of all local authorities.
The Parliamentary Secretary was a little naive in the argument he brought forward. In fact, right through the Bill, the Minister does intervene and keeps on intervening, and, as the whole House appears to have agreed, rightly intervenes in ever so many things. It is really a bit late in the day for the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "We are being awfully careful, because we want the local authorities to come into this willingly, and not have the Minister trampling all over them." It is a little late in the day to say that, because, right through this Bill, the Minister is taking powers to give directions here and there and make orders, and, indeed, the very conditions which are the subject of this proposed subsection are conditions which cannot be made without the approval of the Minister.
The question is not whether the Minister may or may not intervene, but simply, on the assumption that it is a fact that the Minister is intervening in agreeing the conditions, whether he shall have the right to intervene when there is a rumpus about whether the conditions are being honoured.
In discussing Clause 9, the right hon. Gentleman said—and gave very good reasons, which the House accepted—there was a case where he must have power to make orders. Do not let us obscure the position by having the Minister going all


coy and girlish at the last minute about interfering with the local authorities. There is a good case for so interfering in many of the matters covered by this Bill, and I hope that, in the consideration which the Parliamentary Secretary has promised, that point will be borne in mind.

Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged for the Minister's reply and the undertaking he gave, which we would desire to accept. I appreciate very much the way he approached the Amendment and his reply to it. I think we are getting a new spirit, and I am looking forward to many hours of co-operation in the public interest in the manner in which we are operating now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12.—(PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT BODIES AND PARTICIPATION BY THEM.)

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, to leave out subsection (5).
This Clause is rather a difficult one. It provides for the formation of a joint body by two exporting councils who wish to work together. Subsection (1) declares:
Where it appears to the Minister, on application in that behalf by two or more councils each of them being the council of a county borough or county district, to be expedient, in connection with need of theirs for securing by town development within the meaning of this Act in a locality outside their areas relief for congestion or over-population in their areas, that a joint body consisting of representatives of those councils should be established in order to facilitate participation on their behalf in the development, he may by order provide for the establishment of such a joint body for that purpose.
In subsection (1) we have therefore two exporting councils who may agree together. Then, in subsection (2), it provides that they may agree that the joint body they create shall exercise the various powers which they might individually perform under this Act. Subsection (3) provides that they shall be bodies corporate.
Subsection (5)—and it is the purpose of this Amendment to omit this subsection —provides that:
Before making an order under this section the Minister shall inform the council of the

receiving district, or each of such districts if more than one, and any authorities eligible to participate who did not join in the application but who appear to him to be concerned…
I am not certain what "eligible to participate" means. Is it a reference back to Clause 7 which sets out the various bodies, which include the council of a county borough, the council of a county district which is not a receiving district, the council of a county in which development is carried out, or a joint water board or a sewerage board or, I think, a catchment board?
Those bodies, as I understand it, are what is referred to. It seems to me that such bodies may not even exist when this joint body comes into being. For instance, we may have two housing authorities in, say, Middlesex, in an area which must clearly export. They may form a corporate body for the purpose of dealing with their over-population. They will doubtless have a receiving area in mind for the immediate scheme; but that body corporate may be a county and I should have thought they should be included to go on dealing with a sequence of schemes.
It will not be known at the time the Minister's consent is required what will be all the receiving areas of the other authorities which may have to be dealt with. Therefore I should have thought that the Minister might find himself in difficulties by reason of subsection (5) from agreeing to the formation of a joint body owing to the difficulty in ascertaining who the joint body may be that they may have to deal with at a subsequent date.
Under the terms of subsection (5) the existence of the joint body would be invalid, since the conditions of its existence would not have been performed unless all the bodies which it might subsequently have to deal with had been consulted. But, as has been pointed out so often, this is an Act which depends on goodwill. The Minister has his finger in it from the beginning to the end. Whoever may fulfil the office, surely we can give him credit for a little commonsense. Certainly I would credit the present incumbent of the office with commonsense.
When two exporting councils wish to get together to form a joint council to carry out a specific scheme which is immediate to one in a receiving area, any sensible Minister would discuss it with


the receiving area and the other people interested. Is there any need to place a statutory obligation upon him to do so; a statutory obligation which, if it were not precisely complied with would invalidate the very existence of the corporate body which had been created, since these consultations are a condition precedent to the corporate body's existence?
I should have thought that by putting these conditions precedent into a statute one was risking considerable legal complications in the future, whereas by leaving out these provisions one will not be losing anything and will be avoiding possible complications. I hope that the Minister will consider dropping subsection (5). I fail to see what compensating advantage one would get from retention of the subsection.

Mr. Benn: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not know whether it is necessary for me in seconding the Amendment to state that I disagree with almost everything the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said in the course of his remarks. The reason I put my name to the Amendment was that I wanted to hear from the Minister how these general provisions are to work. I can well understand the relation between the participating authorities, and a joint body gets its own impetus, even although it represents people from different authorities. So, seeing this Clause which lays down that the Minister must consult everyone before the joint body is set up, I put my name to this Amendment to hear from the Minister how the authorities are going to maintain contact with the joint body.
I disagree entirely with the hon. and learned Member. His is a perfectly fantastic argument. It is as if he complained that a Select Committee of this House had no authority because the- Minister forgot to ask the permission of the House. I do not accept any of his arguments, and I only wanted to hear how the joint body is going to work, and how it is, for instance, to maintain its own public relations.

Mr. Paget: If this House did set up a committee where a consent was required, and it had not been obtained, the committee would not be accepted.

Mr. Benn: It is an extremely good thing that in this case it would not apply. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were elected without consent, he would be unable to take his seat. I think the joint body should not be set up until consent has been obtained. This seems to be an extremely good Clause, and I hope that the Minister will not under any circumstances accept the Amendment.

Mr. Macmillan: I find myself in some difficulty in dealing with an Amendment which has been moved and seconded in such an unorthodox manner. Perhaps I might take it as it stands, which is the point I am trying to answer. As the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, the effect would be to free the Minister from the obligation to consult two sets of people, in this case, firstly the receiving council and, secondly, certain other authorities. I think it could be argued on the rigid view that there was no need for the Minister to consult the council of the receiving district because it would have an opportunity of making its views known at a later stage when approached by the joint body.
I think it is still desirable as a matter of courtesy, and to make for a harmonious working to such a plan, that the receiving district should be informed on what is going to happen at the earliest possible stage, and not left to find out, when a participating authority makes some proposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not make much play about that part of the Amendment, but he was worried about the danger that we might tie ourselves up in some difficulty in regard to the obligations in the second part of the subsection.
The purpose of this part of the subsection is to see that the interests of other exporting authorities, who may not have been consulted by the authorities applying for the order and who may be concerned to get accommodation in the district, are properly looked after. Supposing Manchester was trying to get a development for its over-spill of population in some other part of Lancashire. Salford might want to know about it and to join in and take a fair share in the scheme.
1.0 a.m.
Therefore I think it is important that that procedure should be followed. That is the purpose of this. The only point is whether it should be made obligatory,


rather than to leave it to the Minister. We are perhaps running some risk of getting into a position where we fail to carry out strictly this obligation and thereby invalidate a scheme. That was the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman I think. I will certainly look into that part of it to see if there is any danger of that legal point and, if it is necessary to find some words to avoid it, I will try to do so, but I should have thought that was covered by the phrase:
who did not join in the application but who appear to him to be concerned,
It is the Minister who is the judge of it, and I should have thought those words would prevent the unhappy result which the hon. and learned Gentleman foresaw. However I will look at it again to see that we do not get into the tangle about which he has tried to warn us.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. It may well be that the words "but who appear to him to be concerned" may be saving words which will be of great value if we get into difficulty. I was not considering so much the question of what might be called the competitive exporting authorities. The people I was a little concerned about were people like drainage boards, water boards and sewerage boards who may come into existence after the joint body has been formed.
If a joint body is formed between the housing authorities in Middlesex who contemplate a series of receiving areas, some of which will not be developed for a good many years hence, it may be found that authorities have come into existence by the time we get to the development stage which did not exist at the time the joint board was formed. Since it is made obligatory that the authorities, as defined in Clause 7, shall be consulted before the joint board is formed, there may be considerable difficulties if authorities come into existence after the joint board is formed, and as to whether the joint board then has existence and applies in the area where a new authority interested has come into existence.
I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have added that to make it quite clear so that it may be taken, and possibly some saving words may be needed to cover that kind of

situation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I move this Motion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in order that the right hon. Gentleman can state his intentions. It is now very late and I see many of his hon. Friends on the opposite side of the House in a distressed condition. I know, too, that the right hon. Gentleman has a heavy and strenuous day ahead of him in Departmental duties. I should be the last to want to make it more difficult for him to carry out those duties which are a valuable part of his function as a Minister in the great. Department which he has the honour to serve.
In view of what may prove to be, perhaps, a very contentious matter to be raised on an Amendment at a later stage, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the adjournment of the debate tonight so that the facilities for his own duties may be granted and also that we may deal with this Bill at a more applicable time and in more appropriate conditions.

Mr. Donnelly: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I always find it very difficult not to yield to the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman, because he has been so helpful to me throughout this Bill. We had a fairly good debate on Tuesday and I think we have made a good deal of progress in the atmosphere which has developed in the course of the last few hours. I hoped, therefore, that we might have tried to see our way still further. I do not think that there will be a very large number of points which require very prolonged discussion. Indeed, I think the point to which the hon. Gentleman referred might turn out to be less difficult than he thinks. As far as I know, there are only three or four other Amendments, and I think we might see if we could finish the Bill.

Mr. Hale: I have no particular desire, subject to what my hon. Friend says, to adjourn at this stage. Personally, I think this is an important and argent Bill and that the sooner it gets through the better. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman will have in mind that there are many


other items on the Order Paper today, and may I say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is wait-to reply to a Prayer referring to fats, cheese and tea which I hope to move.
It does not concern me at all because I shall be here, and if we go on to that Motion I shall move it, but it seems to me that the time has arrived when, as a matter of courtesy to those interested, it would be unreasonable to keep the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food here if the Whips are to move the Adjournment of the House before that matter is reached. The whole of this matter is entirely in the hands of the Front Bench opposite. We are the helpless witnesses; we come and go when we are told.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. Friend does not go where he is told.

Mr. Hale: I do, and by somebody who has more authority over me than anybody in this House.
There is the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill on the Order Paper, to which Amendments have been put down exclusively by hon. Members opposite. So far as I know no one on this side has tabled an Amendment to that Bill. There is also the Third Reading of the Bill we are now discussing. I am only expressing my own view, but, on the whole, I think it might be a very good thing if we could dispose of the Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill today. We do not want to hold it up because it is very important and urgent.
That would take up to 5 or 6 a.m., when the tubes and buses would be running again. I should have thought that by now one could have said it was almost impossible that we could continue beyond the point of the Third Reading of this Bill at the most. It would certainly be a matter of courtesy to the House. It is surprising that the Leader of the House has not been here at all. We see as little of him at the moment as we do of the "Abominable Snowman." We have not seen him at all or had any intimation from him. Apparently this matter was put down without his knowledge, because he failed to inform us that it had been put down. As I say, this suggestion does not affect

me because I shall be here, but it would help those who are waiting for other matters which might not arise.

Mr. Bing: It seems to me that we have made very great progress. We all appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and perhaps we shall be able to dispose of this part of the Bill rather more quickly than we thought. It seems that there is a very contentious Amendment coming on, and I would ask the Minister to say whether he thinks it well to break off and not try to get the Third Reading tonight. If he can give some indication, although we have made good progress already, perhaps we could go even faster, and then break off and deal with the Third Reading when everyone is more fresh.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has described himself as one of the "helpless witnesses" and I shall remember that phrase. As for the Prayers, I understand that there is no urgency, in a Parliamentary sense, of course, to pray on any particular night. But I had hoped that we might have got the Third Reading reasonably early. I suggest that we continue, and see what progress is made.

Mr. Lindgren: I do not think that we want, in view of what the Minister has said, to delay the House by discussing whether we are going on, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(7) A joint body established under this section shall consist as nearly as possible of representatives of each body in numbers proportionate to the numbers of the local government electors in each of the local government areas forming the area of the representation of the joint body.
I want to say, frankly, that this is an exploratory Amendment. This Clause gives power—and it has been discussed before, so I need not weary the House with details—to adjoining county boroughs to arrange a joint scheme for the provision of planning outside their area. My own view is that, so far as Lancashire is concerned, this is one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. For, one can get a much better scheme if the overspill of neighbouring authorities cooperate for a first-class scheme rather


than that little individual schemes should be put forward. It means greater economy in terms of land, greater benefits in terms of services, and much more comprehensive steps can be taken in regard to employment.
The Clause provides that the Minister may approve the appointment of a joint committee representing two or more authorities. That, so far, I think all hon. Members will agree, is obviously desirable and necessary. I know enough of affairs in Lancashire to say that there they would ask, "How is the committee likely to be constituted? What representation is to be given, and how is that representation to be based?"
Let us face the fact that there are in Manchester and in Stockport schemes which intend that their overspills be absorbed in "new town" proposals, others in "dormitories" and others, we hope under the terms of this Bill. Manchester is large compared with Stockport, and this is a serious matter. How is the committee to be constituted?
I have ventured to put down an Amendment suggesting one method although I am not tightly committed to it. It may not be the answer, but one has to have an answer, and it is not good enough to say that the Minister will have to "think it over." I do not think that Oldham or Stockport would co-operate with Manchester unless they knew what representation they would have, or what protection they could expect. This is, of course, really a fundamental problem which confronts all of those people who believe in real federation, and the small——

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: Oldham and Chadderton.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Hale: Yes, Oldham and Chadderton. That is precisely why amalgamation did not take place. It is because the smaller authority concerned, if it is absorbed by the larger, fears that it will be outvoted.
But perhaps the Minister will say I am being tempted to make the case against my own Amendment. I said there was a case against it. It may not be acceptable for Manchester to have six or seven representatives to Oldham's one. But we should know what is in the Minister's

mind, and how he proposes to do it. We should know what he envisages is the sort of constitution of the joint body which can successfully operate this scheme. I feel that unless we have some clarification of this, very valuable features of this Clause may be stultified by the fear of the smaller authorities.

Mr. Bing: I beg to second the Amendment.
In view of the pleasant atmosphere, I do not think we wish to delay the House in reaching the Third Reading of this Measure and that other Amendment which we have all been looking forward to—if at the last moment its promoters do not take fright and remove it from the Order Paper. If they still have the courage of their own convictions, I do not think I should stand, between the House and perhaps the most important Amendment.
I agree it is very important we do all possible to encourage local, authorities to get together for this purpose. In Essex, it is always one of the difficulties of getting really effective bodies. Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I am not certain that this is the best method. I think it is an open question how much you should specify exactly what the Minister should do and how much you should leave to his good sense. I hope that we shall get the Minister's views on this matter.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said he was seeking information from the Minister, and that he would not press the Amendment to a Division. I am glad he said that because his Amendment, as it stands, might, in certain circumstances, react extremely unfavourably on certain authorities—and Oldham in particular. If Oldham went in with a larger authority it might easily be outvoted, even though Oldham was taking the larger share of the housing scheme and making a larger financial contribution, because it had a smaller number of electors.
Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman an example of the schemes possible under this Bill. Salford have already built in Worsley, and Lancashire have made a financial contribution. That is a very good scheme. Manchester and Salford could together arrange to build in another part of Lancashire or Cheshire as a joint


authority. So that there would be Manchester, Salford and the receiving district. The county council can come in and give assistance if they so desire. Manchester might have one-tenth of the houses and Salford nine-tenths; there are all sorts of combinations and permutations possible.
My right hon. Friend hopes that advantage will be taken to set up joint bodies in appropriate cases. If we have the right size of unit to carry out these building operations it may be that they will be more efficient and more speedy. Therefore, as the joint bodies can comprise almost any sort of arrangement, it follows that it is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down rigid rules for the composition of the people running the joint bodies. Is it to be governed by the rating valuation of an area, or the democratic numbers, or the housing needs?
Frankly, each case will have to be taken on its merits, but with this safeguard for the local authorities. By subsection (4) of this Clause:
An Order under this section may make such provision as the Minister considers expedient with respect to the constitution of the joint body.
Since that body can only be set up as a result of an application made jointly by all the local authorities concerned, it follows that the provisions the Minister proposes to include in the order must satisfy all those authorities. If an authority was not satisfied it could withdraw. It means, in principle, that the composition of the body must depend upon the merits of the particular joint body, and that any local authority could withdraw and has the right to withdraw if it so wishes.
They may decide that the composition should be according to the housing needs. If Salford is having nine-tenths of the houses and Manchester is having one-tenth, the composition may consist of nine from Salford and one from Manchester. It may be fifty-fifty. But whatever it is, they can withdraw and make representations to the Minister. Because of the flexible and elastic nature of the arrangements which would be made under this Bill, it follows that the composition of the joint body must itself be flexible and must be decided on the merits of the case. As each local authority has the option to withdraw if it is not satisfied, it means that no small authority

will be trampled on. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary. He started of charmingly and rather fully, and, I thought, with unnecessary verbosity because he really had not got an answer to give to the question. However, he had an answer, and it is based on the fact that the authority which is not having fair representation can withdraw. We have to do a lot of homework in connection with these matters, and if I have erred and strayed and not fully comprehended the provisions of the Clause I apologise. I think this is a substantial and fair safeguard.
We are, however, only dealing with a simple mathematical problem, and I should have thought that whatever the permutations and combinations, the composition of the joint bodies might be based upon the interest that has been taken or the number of houses allocated to one authority, and so on. However, I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, and in view of his explanation I shall not press the Amendment.
I do so particularly because we all feel that the next Amendment, in Clause 17, page 14, line 45, is very important. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is here, because we know that he will not be bludgeoned into withdrawing his Amendment, and that a matter of this kind will be fully presented and argued, and we are all interested to hear him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS UNDER THIS ACT.)

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in page 15, line 36.

Mr. Hale: I understood that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Enoch Powell) was being called, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I did not select that.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. I must apologise. I was under a misapprehen-


sion. I therefore beg to move, in page 15, line 36, to leave from "draft" to "if," in line 37.
This was the Clause put down on recommittal stage in respect of which, Mr. Speaker, you said you would accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: This is the Amendment in respect of which I gave a promise that I would call on Report stage.

Mr. Hale: That is what I was saying Mr. Speaker. You said you would accept a manuscript Amendment on Tuesday, but we have been able to avoid that by putting it down in due form. The words I wish to leave out are
or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial.
This, again is almost the same point I raised in connection with Clause 9, when, quite frankly, I was disappointed by the answer the Minister gave to that discussion. These words have the same sort of connotation as those I sought to delete earlier. Once again the Parliamentary draftsman, for reasons which are perhaps clear to him but which are obscure to me, has inserted this curious limitation. The Clause deals with the power of the Minister to make orders by Statutory Instruments. It reads:
Where the Minister is of opinion that such an order as is mentioned in subsection (4) of section 13 of this Act or in section (2) of section fifteen thereof
that is, the Section which gives power to make Orders under Section 6 of the Public Health Act, 1936
he shall give notice that he is of that opinion to all authorities appearing to him to be concerned, setting out a provisional draft of an order and stating a period, not less than twenty-eight days, within which objections may be made, and the said subsection (4) or the said subsection (2), as the case may be, shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the noice or all objections so made are withdrawn.
In that there are the curious words:
or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial.
We have agreed that the Minister should have wide discretion in his powers, but here it appears he is to be judge in his own court. He is given wide powers

to avoid the one provision absolutely vital in this matter—that Parliament should continue to exercise control. How can one challenge the exercise of that power? If modifications are immaterial they are not worth making. If they are material they would not be in the Bill. The House is being asked to give him something not normally given.
I realise that some hon. Member may get up and say that in 1870 a Bill was passed with the same words, in it. I was not a Member then: had I been it would not have been so passed. If the words are omitted it means that the Minister takes one of two courses. Either he agrees with counsel and need not bring the matter before the House, or he does not agree, in which case it does not. That is the intention of the Clause and of the Minister.
I suggest that these words do give a Minister—not necessarily the present Minister—a power which he should not have. Next October, something may happen, and we have to bear in mind that there may be changes. I do not know what party is likely to succeed the present Government, and it would be improper to speculate on who will be the next Minister, but our duty, as watchdogs and as people concerned with democracy and liberty, is to see that no prospective Minister, whoever he may be, is given power which he should not have, and that Parliament preserves inviolable the duty of superintending the activities of Ministers and its right of having submitted to it by Statutory Instrument the details of matters of this sort.
All I suggest is that the Minister should gracefully say that he is prepared to abandon this purely negative thing of doing what he considers to be immaterial, because, if it is immaterial, it is not worth doing, and, if it is not immaterial, it may be vital.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Bing: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is one Amendment which we should have been able to discuss had the matter come up at an earlier stage, and it was our hope to be able to deal with it in Committee. We were wrong about that, but it is a matter on which we are entitled to expect some explanation from the Minister.

Mr. Mitchison: There may have been other wedges like this before, but I regard this as a rather dangerous thin end. Clauses 13 and 15 refer, first, to re-transfers of land and then to matters about sewerage, and, without going into them in detail, it is clear that the Minister and those responsible for promoting this Bill regard them as of considerable importance. Under both these Clauses, the draft order has to be placed before this House and approved, and that, of course, is put in in recognition of the importance of the matters contained in them.
So far as I understand this Clause— and I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong, and the reasons for my error explained to me—it seems to me that, after the draft Order has been placed before this House and approved, it rests with the Minister to decide what alterations he considers immaterial, and, if he does decide that they are immaterial, he is empowered by the terms of this Clause to make these alterations, notwithstanding that the matter was the subject of the approval of this House, and notwithstanding the fact that this House will not be in a position to say whether the alterations made were or were not immaterial.
One assumes that a power of that kind will be exercised carefully and by responsible Ministers, but, none the less, if the Orders in question are to be placed before the House for approval at all, I submit that it is a thoroughly dangerous procedure that they should be subjected to alteration afterwards by the Minister, and at the Minister's discretion and on his judgment of what is and what is not material.
I hope, therefore, that as the point does not seem to have been discussed upstairs the Minister will not think it necessary to include in the Bill the words which it is sought to leave out by this Amendment.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This does not deal at all with those Orders which require and receive the affirmation of the House of Commons and of Parliament. This deals with the case where everything is agreed, where the draft Order is made and either no objections are put up by the local authorities concerned within a specified time or they are withdrawn. This deals with the cases of complete agreement. All these words do is to allow the Minister to make minor corrections to improve the actual form, but not to affect the substance of the matter.

Mr. Mitchison: I am very puzzled by this explanation. Take, for instance Clause 15 and the Orders which are to be made under subsection 2 of that Clause. As I read it, it means:
…no order shall be made under section six of the Public Health Act, 1936, by virtue of paragraph (a)of the preceding subsection, no order amending or revoking an order so made shall be made under section nine of that Act, and no order shall be made under paragraph (b)of the preceding subsection, unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
It seems to follow that a draft Order of this sort may have been approved by Parliament and may then be the subject of alteration in respects in which the Minister considers to be immaterial.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I take note of what the hon. and learned Member has said and I will certainly look at it again. But it says, at the end of subsection (2) of Clause 19:
…the said subsection (2)"—
of Clause 15—
shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the notice or all objections so made are withdrawn.
Therefore, we are dealing with the case of an Order to which either no objections have been made within the time stated or, having been made, are withdrawn. This is simply a case of power to make verbal alterations to improve the substance. It applies only to cases of agreement. But if there is any flaw in this I will look at this again; though I think my reading of it is correct. If it is necessary to introduce a correction in another place I would be most happy to give that undertaking.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the Minister to look again at Clause 15. So far as I can see the making of Orders under subsection 1 (a) or 1 (b)of that Clause does not depend on agreement at all.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. and learned Member should read the words I have quoted from the second half of subsection (2) of Clause 19, which says:
This shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within


the time stated in the notice or all objections so made are withdrawn.
The only thing we are discussing is whether the words "provisional draft" shall or shall not include those words; we are now discussing the draft as it stands or with immaterial changes in it.

Mr. Mitchison: Let us assume that no objection is made and that there is the consent of all sides: none the less, the position is that an Order cannot be made under Clause 15 (1, b)except by the Minister and except after a draft has been laid here and approved by resolution here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now making a second speech.

Mr. Paget: This is, as we have observed on a number of occasions, not an easy Act to follow. The interpretations which the Minister has put on this are, I think, a little difficult to comply with. Section 19 directly brings in subsection 2 of Section 15. It says:
Where the Minister is of opinion that such an order as is mentioned in subsection (4) of section thirteen of this Act or in subsection (2) of section fifteen thereof ought to be made, he shall give notice that he is of that opinion to all authorities appearing to him to be concerned, setting out a provisional draft of an order and stating a period, not less than twenty-eight days, within which objections may be made, and the said subsection (4) or the said subsection (2), as the case may be, shall not apply to an order made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the notice or all objections so made are withdrawn.
Therefore, the position is that where we have a Clause 15 Order, which would require the consent of Parliament, we need not get the consent of Parliament if people consent to a draft, even if one makes an Order which is very different from the draft. It is making an Order which is different from the draft to which objection is taken in this Amendment. Either the alteration is immaterial—that is to say, it does not have any effect and need not be made—or it is not immaterial, and it does have effect.
The Minister may point out that it is not a question of its not being material; that it is a question of its not appearing material to the Minister. So the virtue of these words which we wish to omit

is that they can only be effective in a case where the Minister is wrong, because the Amendment which he makes really does make a difference, but he does not think that it does. Therefore, although it is material, and ex hypothesieffective, it is still legal because he did not think it was material.
Those are the only circumstances in which I can imagine these words being of any value. It seems rather odd for a Minister to take special provision to profit from any occasion on which he may be mistaken. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at these words again, because I do not think I have ever seen them in a statute before. They seem loose and dangerous words to insert, and I feel that we would be rather inclined to divide on this Amendment.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Hale: Once again, at what may be the concluding part of this stage of the Bill, I must say a word about the incomprehensible nature of its drafting. I lean to the view on this occasion that the right hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation that this provision does apply only to Orders in respect of which there has been an assent by the council or a withdrawal. I accept that, but we are still discussing matters which were thought would fall to be dealt with by Statutory Instrument.
We are dealing with matters which the Act envisaged would need affirmative resolutions of both Houses, but here the Minister is taking the power to modify an assent by saying he does not think it matters much. We may be discussing later the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order. I can understand the Minister saying that one ounce of cheese does not matter much. But one cannot base these things on quantitative arguments. The widow's mite is important to the widow, however little it means to the millionaire, and it is a serious matter to say that the Minister shall be complete judge in his own case, responsible to no one, and with no appellate body exercising any supervision over him so that he can alter something and say that it is immaterial.
The proposition damns itself. If it is immaterial he could get agreement with the council straight away by return of post. Why should he not? Why should he demand from the House this right to alter a thing without further consulta-


tion, if it has been agreed? If it is immaterial it is not worth making. If it is worth making it must be material and it should be a matter on which he should consult the councils concerned. I think it would be a serious matter if the Clause went forward in this way.
The Clause itself is a monumental example of how not to say a thing. Words seem to have been inserted purely to prolong it and make it incomprehensible. I do not want to use any discourteous words to the Minister tonight. He has been most courteous and accommodating, and I am glad we have made such rapid progress with the Bill. We have done much better tonight than I had hoped. [Interruption.]The right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but there was an intervention imputing something and I wanted to know what was being imputed. I have paid tribute to the accommodating replies we have been receiving in the last hour or two and I was trying to make a recognition of that in my remarks. I am sorry I cannot apply it to this Clause. I think it is discourteous to the House for the Minister not to give a single example of what he has in mind in asking the House to give him this special power. The House has not had a word said to it as to the sort of thing which the Minister might think immaterial which might not have been the subject of full consultation with the councils. He ought to tell us.
Personally, the decision as to whether we force a Division on this matter I shall leave to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. So far as I am concerned, I am profoundly dissatisfied with the answer which has been given to this Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is a point here, though perhaps one would not have thought so from the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), and it is of some importance from a constitutional point of view. It is, at any rate, theoretically possible under this Clause that, where there has been a provisional draft to which no objection has been taken by a local authority, a Minister might then use the powers of this Clause

to make a modification which, if it had been incorporated in the original draft, would have induced an objection; and, therefore, the right to a resolution of this House which would be lost.
That is the sole point. It is unlikely to occur in practice but it is theoretically possible, and, therefore, the words are not very happy. It would, in my submission, be a convenient thing if, before the Bill comes up in another place, the Minister would see what pedigree, if any, there is for this form of words, and if so, whether it be a respectable pedigree.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). It seems to me that this Clause is plain in its meaning. It only applies where there is no objection or all objections are withdrawn. In all other cases the Order must be laid before Parliament. But it seems to me to be dangerous to leave it to the Minister to decide whether or not the change he then makes is immaterial or material.
I think the word "immaterial" is quite clear. It means that it is such an alteration as would not weigh with a local authority in deciding whether or not to object. Nevertheless, I cannot see any reason why that should be left to the decision of the Minister alone, who may well be mistaken in his interpretation. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might reconsider the matter in another place.

Amendment negatived.

1.55 a.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I think at this stage the House will not expect me to do more than be very brief on the Third Reading of this Bill, which is of considerable importance and one in respect of which I hope much valuable work may be done. It has been described as a non-controversial Bill. I have had the pleasure of conducting it both upstairs and downstairs, and I can only say that I hope that any of the controversial Bills which I may have to conduct will not take up any more time or be any more difficult.
As I said before, I would like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House


who have contributed in dealing with the many important points of the Bill. There are still one or two to be looked at, and we will do our best with them.

1.56 a.m.

Mr. Lindgren: We on this side of the House welcome the Third Reading of this Bill and congratulate the Minister on having got it to this stage. I am afraid that the Report stage has been rather what one might term, in the disrespectful language of the layman, the lawyers' delight. I always thought I knew something about the practice and perhaps even the theory of town and country planning, but much of the discussion this evening has been much above my head.
So that the Minister may be excused from too much blame, I must admit that by far the greater portion of the draft of the Bill which he presented was already in the Department before my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and myself left it.
There are only two points I wish to raise. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the Committee stage there was a short discussion on Clause 20, which is a sort of declaratory Clause which deals with the planning permission, the deemed planning permission, and, of course, with the normal planning permission. It says, in fact, that the procedure of the 1947 Act shall be applied. Personally, I agree that the deemed Planning Commission is fundamental, and I further agree that one must rely on the Minister sensibly to administer the Acts of Parliament for which he is responsible.
From personal experience, I have reason to be grateful for the advice given me in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and to know about the excellence of the staff responsible particularly for this side of planning. Therefore, I am satisfied, as I think is everyone else associated with planning, that the Bill when it becomes an Act will be properly administered. One must assume that in any case the Minister will act sensibly, though there are some who would be delighted if he did not so that they could deal with him on the Floor of the House of Commons.
The Minister will remember, as I mentioned earlier, that we had this dis-

cussion in Committee upstairs, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman's reply which he gave on the Committee stage on 2nd April, column 293 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, was sufficient to give local authorities the assurance that there would not be the granting of a deemed planning permission in circumstances which would deprive local authorities of a right to state their objections to a fundamental interference in their affairs.
But representations have been made to me by the Urban District Councils' Association, and I believe that they have also been made through the official channels to the Minister's own Department. They would prefer that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary when he comes to reply should give an assurance that where there is an objection by the receiving authority during the planning stage there will be a public inquiry so that all voices may be heard.
The only other point I would raise is the one about which we did engender a little heat during the Committee stage. So far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is concerned, when he was thinking of this Bill and its application in the country, the limitation of financial resources was only that of the ability of the local authorities in the areas to provide houses and the necessary work. But, from time to time, we rather gathered that the Minister had the impression—or that he was trying to give us the impression—that the Treasury had put a limiting figure on what was to be available each year. There is a limit, and it is the limit of the physical resources to provide the houses and shops in the areas developed.
It would be well if the local authorities —some of whom had exaggerated hopes of this Bill, and who still have considerable hopes—could be told that there is really no restriction on the financial resources available, provided the necessary works can be carried out by the local authorities within the national investment programme of whatever Government is in power.
From my own point of view, I committed the Department, when my right hon. Friend was Minister of Local Government and Planning, at one or two local government conferences. I said it at the Urban Councils' Association Con-


ference, so there is, from the point of view of the Department, some indication already given to local authorities as to what is likely to be the trend of administration when this Bill reaches the Statute Book.
I do not think that there is any intention to depart from what was then the policy, but it would be useful if we could clear the air. Having said that, it remains only for me to congratulate the Minister in having brought this Bill to its Third Reading, and I join with him in hoping that it will be effective in building up the smaller towns, and the urban and rural areas who are to cooperate in taking the excess populations from our overcrowded areas to places of which we shall be proud and which will make good areas to live in.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I welcome this Bill in so far as it seeks to provide a stimulus to our housing on the basis of agreement, and in so far as it will assist in providing houses in the right places. Therefore, my few observations, at this hour of the morning, are confined to that part of the Bill which is concerned with compulsory powers, namely, Clause 9.
I appreciate that the Minister says that this is a Clause which he does not apprehend will be used extensively; but, once powers are on the Statute Book, it is generally asking too much of human nature, and almost also too much of official nature, to expect that the powers will not be used rather more generally than was hoped at the time when the assent of Parliament for them was being sought. If my memory serves me rightly, on Second Reading, stress was laid on the point that there were certain planning safeguards in this matter; but, in substance, that is not true. I think the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) addressed himself, in the earlier part of the speech he has just made, to this same point.
Clause 20 says:
Nothing in this Act…shall be taken to authorise the carrying out of development not authorised by planning permission granted…
Then there follow the apposite words:
…or deemed to have been granted under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
If I understand it aright, the great majority of this development will have deemed

planning permission direct from the Minister in his capacity of Minister of Housing under Clause 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
That means that a reluctant or a compelled receiving authority under Clause 9 of the Bill will not have any planning safeguards because they will have had no planning jurisdiction as the local planning authority of the receiving district. That causes me a good deal of apprehension. I would support what I understood the hon. Member for Wellingborough to say, that there should be a public local inquiry.
There is no provision for that in the Bill as it stands, and the inquiry can only be held under the general powers of the Minister. I am not very happy with this situation, especially as it will be possible, in any event, for there to be a good deal more compulsory acquisition of land in any local planning authority's area than is contemplated by the provisions of the development plan.
In these circumstances, I think it right to put on record what I consider to be the principles that must be specified before an Order is made under Clause 9 of this Bill. They are: first, that the land set aside to be taken is land zoned for residential development under the relevant development plan. In regard to that principle consideration should be had for the satisfaction of the needs of the people in the locality before land is taken compulsorily for an exporting authority.
The next principle, in my view, is that the proposed development should not create a mere dormitory estate, contrary to the accepted principles of town and country planning and place undue burden on the available transport services. The last principle is that they should not normally be sited in the vicinity of new towns because the competition for labour and materials would be thereby aggravated. In any event things are difficult for industry and agriculture in the neighbourhood of these new towns even without this aggravating influence.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have these considerations in mind. I welcome the fact that in the Committee stage Parliamentary control has been given to the making of compulsory Orders in the form of an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.


I hope that, if there must be compulsory Orders, these principles will be followed, and I join with my right hon. Friend in expressing the hope that they will not be normally used. I also join with him and the hon. Member for Wellingborough in hoping that those provisions of the Bill which operate on a basis of agreement will bring results to the benefit of the community as a whole.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Donnelly: I shall not join issue with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on the few points on which I disagree with him about the limit of the powers of Clause 9, but instead, at this late hour, as we part in harmony, I shall agree with him on some of the conditions which are laid down as to which he thought the powers should be exercised. We are all agreed with him on the vital necessity of seeing that dormitory estates should not grow up again and that there should not be any more Becontrees and that kind of thing.
It seems to me that there are considerations other than those of greater industrial efficiency which arise from industry and good living conditions being near to each other, and the lines of communication between productive industry and the distributive sources of goods and the actual marketing facilities that are provided at the end of such a distribution line. That can all be brought about by good and effective town planning, and we all agree on that. I do not want to go into the virtues of more healthy living conditions which accrue from people living in open places where they have gardens, where families can be brought up with greater opportunities for fresh air, sunlight, exercise, and so on.
I should like to say a word or two about one point which has not been discussed in the course of our deliberations and which seems to me to be very relevant at this moment. That is the urgent need for decentralisation because of defence considerations. This country has embarked upon a great rearmament programme. The international situation, by no stretch of imagination could be described as placid, and we are in a very vulnerable position in this crowded, small

island at the junction between East and West.
It is very important that the right hon. Gentleman's Department should consider the urgent need for decentralisation for purposes of defence, because if we are going to have industry crowded out into the conurbations and into the metropolises it makes our defensive capacity during a war extremely limited, and it means that much of the other defensive preparations that we have been making are nullified because of this lack of decentralisation.
I have in my hand a copy of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of the United States of America, and they have appreciated this point quite clearly. They have devoted a whole issue to this urgent need for urban dispersal. It seems to me that this Bill is one vehicle by which this urban dispersal can be undertaken rapidly without the more comprehensive machinery of new town development and with all the attendant ramifications and difficulties which follow.
There are one or two things in this Bulletin which strike me as being relevant illustrations of the kind of thing I have in mind. They give an example of the German ball-bearing production factory in Schweinfurt during the Second World War. These anti-friction bearings were an essential part of their aircraft production, and their production was concentrated in one town. It was thought that it was too remote and that it would not be possible to bomb it effectively because fighter protection for the bombers was not possible. In 1943 bombing raids started, and the whole of the industrial capacity——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the Bill. He is going beyond it.

Mr. Donnelly: I wish to secure the implementation of this Bill for this particular purpose, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The whole of the productive capacity of this vitally essential war-making material was destroyed in one air raid in August, 1943. As a result, the whole of the war productive capacity of Germany was prejudiced. Using that as an illustration, I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman's Department that now that we have got to the atomic age,


when the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are quite small toys considered in terms of present day destruction, it is vitally important that his Department should give the same consideration to the way in which this Bill can be used for decentralising the big cities in order to safeguard the people of this country and its industrial production from any future attack. I will not pursue that point any more now except to say that having made it I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take cognisance of it and see to it that his Department bears it in mind.
There are three points which we really ought to consider when dealing with the Third Reading of this Bill. First of all, it has been said time and time again during the Report stage and upstairs in Committee that its provisions are dependent on how much money the right hon. Gentleman is able to extract from the Treasury. We wish him well in every sense. In saying that I would add that it may not just be purely a monetary-balancing kind of transaction which should be the final criterion whether money should be granted to the Ministry to assist in the implementation of the Bill.
It may well be that a large-scale investment programme may have to be undertaken for the extension of the London suburban transport which would not show itself in the Treasury account but which may be a drain on the national economy. The first danger, and one on which every hon. Member on all sides of the House must give support to the Minister, is to see that the Treasury does not restrict the Minister, or his Department, in extending the decentralisation programme on a large scale because of immediate financial gain or loss.
Secondly, it seems to me, there is something of a danger arising from the fact that there has been a lot of talk about a few country towns being extended when a Bill such as this came along—towns like Basingstoke, Ashford, St. Albans, and so on. This kind of story was whispered in the corridors of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was there, and even before, when the noble lord, Lord Silkin, was there. These stories percolated through the doors of the Ministry to the outer world.
The Minister should consider the great importance of the minimum of secrecy about proposed development. While there is secrecy the fellow who gets the first news is able to cash in, or there is some misunderstanding or difficulty or there is some speculation by property owners or others. I think that in all proposed town planning development there should be the maximum of publicity and information available and the absolute minimum of confidential talk about particular proposals. Everyone is affected by them and should have an idea of what is going on, and if they have not then they ought to have it, and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me about that.
Thirdly, and in conclusion, I think there is a real danger, and it was expressed on the benches opposite during the discussion on Second Reading—I think it was by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh) in a maiden speech, though I profoundly disagreed with his argument, and other hon. Gentlemen—in the fears of many agriculturists about taking good agricultural land. Of course, we are all anxious to preserve every acre of agricultural land, but it is vitally important that there have to be priorities and a sense of balance and proportion.
When we are considering taking people away from big cities and overcrowded living conditions, and taking them away from their works and factories, to country towns, it is very important that we should not place them in tenements which will become the slums of the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a very careful note of the density standards proposed in any town development that is to take place, because that is the ultimate yardstick by which planning must be judged.
Very frequently, people who advocate a density of 100 or 200 houses to the acre are people who have large houses in the country or live on farms, who occasionally come to London, or, it may be, who work in London for a few days a week, but are always able to go back to the green fields, the open air and the broad pastures. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important that the people who have to live and work in the same place should have some open spaces and some opportunities


for gardens in which their children can grow up to lead healthy lives. One should strike a balance in this matter, and see that decentralisation, where it does take place, is for permanent benefit, and not for a temporary improvement in living conditions while the buildings themselves are still new and spick and span.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on getting his Bill to this stage, and I wish him great success in its administration. He has earned the gratitude of a great many people who have taken an interest in this matter for helping to pilot the Bill to this stage, and I would add to that what is far more important—the gratitude of all those people who will benefit when this Bill becomes a reality, and when towns and cities begin to be changed as a result of what we are now discussing, which is the bare bones of a framework which may, in years to come, be a living reality, offering better opportunities for life in healthy conditions for all our people.

2.22 a.m.

Mr. Paget: Before leaving this Bill, I wish to enter my final protest against the draftsmanship to which we have to submit. It is not only the layman who, in recent years, has been protesting about the progressively incomprehensible draftsmanship adopted in modern legislation. Judges have time and again protested at the unnecessary prolixity and fogginess of language which has been used in Statutes.
From a drafting point of view, this Bill is the worst I have ever seen. For instance, let us look at Clause 1 (1), where there are 11 lines of highly complicated matter. What does it all mean other than that, under this Act, town development means development in which building and ancillary work takes place in one district to relieve the congestion and overcrowding in another district? That is a perfectly simple statement of the same thing in one-third of the words, and if either the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) or the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him can find that that shortened version does not say exactly the same thing as the longer version, I shall be obliged if they will say so.
To take Clause 2, why not say simply that a receiving district means any district in which building and ancillary work

takes place? That says exactly the same in about one-tenth of the words used in the Clause. Then we come to subsection (2). Having taken the trouble to define town development in Clause (1), why not start straight away by saying, "This applies to town development to be carried out—"and so on? Is that town development or is it not? We have defined town development just before. Does town development there mean something else, and, if so, what is it? If it means town development as we have already defined it, why not use the words with which we have already provided ourselves?
Then we come to the phrase
carried out after the passing of this Act
and in subsection 4 (a)an important paragraph which describes it as after July, 1951. When we go on to subsection 1 (a) we learn that it refers to
town development within the meaning of this Act on a substantial scale.
Para, (b)says that
the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion or over-population in (i)…(ii)…and (iii)…
and I think we have added, by an Amendment, something to (iii).
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what (i), (ii) and (iii) exclude. If (i), (ii) and (iii) are comprehensive of all congestion and overpopulation, why insert (i), (ii) and (iii); and if they are not comprehensive of all congestion and over-population, will he tell us what is excluded, and why? I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that all this has been asked before: these questions have been asked, but they have never been answered.
Then we come to subsection (2) with paragraphs (a), (b,) (c), (d)and (e). These describe the kinds of expenses incurred by the receiving districts towards which the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make a contribution. These expenses are
incurred by them in relation to development of which this section applies.
Are these inclusive of all the expenses and, if so, why should they be there at all? Or does he wish not to contribute to some expenses? If so, what are they and why are they excluded?
Then we come to subsection (3). What is the point of it at all? If we omit it, we authorise the Minister to make pay-


ments and—the greater excluding the less —it authorises him to make payments in any form he chooses. What is the point of that special definition?
Then there is Clause 6 of the Bill, dealing with the power compulsorily to acquire land not zoned for compulsory acquisition. What land does the right hon. Gentleman not want to have power to acquire under this? It seems to me that the effect of Clause 6 is to give you authority over land for this purpose. If so, why not say so?
We have already seen the complexities of Clause 19 and we have had arguments with a whole series of people taking different views with regard to every Clause we have looked at. I hope that in future a real effort will be made to get Parliamentary draftsmanship into some intelligible form, and that at some point this drift from unintelligibility to greater unintelligibility will be stopped.

Mr. Hale: While my hon. and learned Friend has been speaking I have turned up the Minister's answer. He said:
All I can say is that this Bill was drafted in the way it is because I was advised by those whose advice I must take that it is the proper way to draft it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 109.]

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that at some point we will be told, with regard to subsection 2 (1, b) whether (1) is excluded, and if so, why it is excluded; and, with regard to subsection 2 (2), what expenditure is excluded and why; and, if the answer to both points is as I suspect, why it is necessary to fill a couple of pages of the statute for this purpose.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo: Earlier, in considering the same Amendment, I made some observations upon the language of one or two of these Clauses. When the Parliamentary Secretary is considering what reply he will make to the direct question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and how he will justify the language of this Bill, I beg him to meet the charge in full.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton objected to the prolixity of the language. In my examination of this Bill I sought for other errors in its style, and I found that in various Clauses the

Bill suffers not merely from prolixity, but from verbosity, redundancy and tautology. I shall be delighted if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why we have to suffer these badly drafted Bills, because what is unintelligible must be the result of bad drafting.

2.32 a.m.

Mr. Bing: What has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) has underlined the importance of the work which some hon. Members on this side of the House are trying to do. If this Bill is badly drafted, some of us on this side must take some of the responsibility for that. It shows that we have not been active enough in putting down Amendments; that we have not made sufficient attempts to deal with, and re-draft, the Bill on a large scale.
If there is any lesson in what has happened today it is that we should attempt to redraft future Bills completely and secure full Parliamentary discussion of the wording of Measures of this sort. Such a suggestion might persuade Ministers to look at the content and form of the words in which Bills are expressed.
Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill. I think it is a valuable Measure, but in welcoming it we would be doing a grave disservice to our constituents if we were to exaggerate its importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) suggested that it would be some solution for the war, and that it would provide us with a first-class defence. With the greatest respect, I do not think that this Bill will really achieve that.
There are about 16 large centres of population in this country. They form one of the reasons why we are particularly vulnerable in any war, and another reason why we should be foremost in seeking opportunities to avoid war. But, looking at the matter on grounds of national defence, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, much as he might wish to use the Bill for this purpose, has the finance, materials or anything else to effect these great transformations which are envisaged in the defenec plans of the hon. Member for Pembroke.
The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) also expressed the hope that the towns created would not be mere


dormitory towns. I hope so, too. I hope that there will be factories and opportunities for recreation, and it is because these things do not exist in dormitory areas that people have to travel outside. But how, under a Bill of this sort, can these things exist when the right hon. Gentleman has to administer a policy which prevents that sort of building? It is ridiculous to say we are introducing a Measure which is going to cure the dormitory areas, and yet, at the same time, put a ban on all those sort of things which make all the difference between dormitory and non-dormitory towns.
We must, therefore, look at the Bill in the general framework of the situation as it exists at the moment, and it is no use building factories in the air because that, under the regime of the right hon. Gentleman, is all that factories can be built with at the moment. If we attempt to use any other material there is some ban of his Ministry.
I am particularly interested in the Bill, because I represent what I suppose is possibly a typical receiving area. Horn-church is an area which received people from all over the world in the inter-war years. They were brought there by private enterprise, and in a completely unplanned way. Anyone wanting to see the evils of approaching a building project on an unplanned basis has only to visit my constituency, with its very many unmade roads, large areas without public halls—and there is no public hall in the whole area that holds more than 200 people—and no provision of any sort for cinemas or anything else.
This unplanned type of development was a typical example of the approach to the problem of town planning adopted by private enterprise in the inter-war years, and that the Minister should have abandoned the whole conception of the private enterprise type of satelite town is, I feel, an excellent beginning upon which we can congratulate him. Therefore, I think there is every argument in favour of all of us doing what we can to popularise the ideas contained in this Bill, and taking the utmost action to show authorities that they both gain if they make use of this machinery.
I myself—and I hope I speak for everybody in Hornchurch—would welcome the opportunity of enriching our own com-

munity by bringing in people from other areas. I think the community gains by the very diversity of the people who are in it, and I hope that in that spirit this Measure will be operated.
But this Measure will be quite useless unless it is accompanied by a policy from the Treasury which will make sense of it. When we are discussing the Financial Resolution it was odd how little information was available about what the Treasury would do to implement the Bill; and unless the Treasury are prepared to come in it will not really be very helpful when local authorities are now being asked to borrow the money they require to carry out these schemes at such greatly enhanced rates. We simply cannot pursue the policy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill and, at the same time, pursue the kind of financial policy which is being pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
For those reasons I think it only proper that we on this side of the House ought to warn everyone against having too exaggerated hopes as to what will happen in the immediate future as a result of this Bill. I do think, though, that when a change of Government occurs we shall have, thanks to the hard work put in by the Minister, a reasonably satisfactory Measure on the Statute Book of which it will be possible for a progressive administration to make use to give people really decent and proper living conditions. Nothing more important than that could be done by this House.

2.42 a.m.

Mr. Benn: Like everybody else I welcome the Bill, but perhaps I may pick out three queries which have arisen at various stages and touch on them briefly before we give the Bill its Third Reading.
The first one has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). It is the question of getting industry into the towns that are being developed. I believe that will be a far more difficult job than the Minister seemed to suggest in the speeches he has made in the course of this Bill. The economic reasons which have led industry to go to the places where they have ground will not operate towards helping the new towns to develop their own industry, and it will largely have to be an artificial process.
The Minister and this Government have drastic powers given by previous Governments which they could easily use if they wanted to do so. They have powers of the control of steel and raw materials. Even the powers of the Capital Issues Committee, powers which would compel industries to move to a new town. But no Government would like to use those powers for those purposes, certainly not the present Government. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will interpret his power to make conditions as sympathetically and understandingly as he suggested he would in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) earlier in the debate. I think it will be necessary to bring home to the local authorities by means of his conditions that they are expected to make it attractive for industries to move to the new towns.
My second point is the question of the duration of the Bill. At one point during the Committee stage it seemed that the Government were not particularly keen on this Bill lasting indefinitely. But we on this side of the House want to see this as a permanent piece of planning mechanism. A great deal has been made by various speakers about the amount of money that will be available. My hon. and learned Friend has just touched on it and other hon. Members have spoken about it.
In the present circumstances we cannot expect a great deal of money to be made available. It is only fair to say that from this side of the House. We cannot expect as much as we would like to see made available, but if this is to be a permanent mechanism that does not matter as much as it otherwise might. If this Bill is to be used continuously over the years ahead and is to be taken seriously by this Government for as long as it lasts, which will not be very long, even a slow start will not be so bad as having a short Measure.
This Bill gives the Minister immense power. Although he commented unfavourably in moving the Third Reading on the way it has been treated by this side of the House, I think he has done less than justice to what we have been trying to do. We have tried to encourage the Minister by means of the Amendments we have put down to take a personal interest in stimulating the pro-

cess of getting the local authorities to work well together and in keeping an eye on them when they might be in dispute, and in intervening early to prevent disputes becoming serious.
Everyone has stressed the fact that it depends on good will, and I think that good will would be preserved by the Minister taking an interest in every stage of the developments of the local authorities. When we give this Bill its Third Reading we also want to remember that it is upon the Minister himself and the way in which he implements its provisions that its power for good or ill so largely depends. I hope that just as this Bill has been well received, the Minister will feel able to use it fully for the purpose for which it is intended.

2.47 a.m.

Mr. Hale: We have made very rapid progress with the Third Reading of this Bill, and that the right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that fact. No one has spoken for more than a few minutes. I am sure that no one on either side of the House would feel that the few extra minutes spent on the Report stage and on Third Reading have not been usefully spent. The Bill has not been delayed. It could only have been hoped to finish it before midnight when it would have had an earlier date, but it will go to another place next week with the good will of both sides.
I think that the most stimulating suggestion came from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who frequently makes most stimulating suggestions. It was that we should devote some of our time to really trying to produce Bills which were reasonably intelligible to ordinary people and which stood a chance of being understood by them. I hope that we shall do that.
I am rather happily placed in this matter because during the 18 months when we had a majority of four, and the House was sitting night after night, it was impossible for me to take part in my professional work and I had to leave it. I am now free to help Ministers in any way I can, and, having no professional income, I cannot afford to spend much on holidays and so can devote myself very fully to the sort of constructive work which will help them.
Those of us who spent our lives in the courts when we were active professionally know precisely how deep is this problem. It is fantastic that in case after case counsel say it might mean this or that and it rather depends on which judge we get. In the end the only thing to do is to spend a lot of money and take a 50–50 chance of the judge saying one thing or another.
If we can have statutes which are clear and easily interpreted, then I think we shall be doing a considerable service to the people at large and particularly to the commercial community who depend so much on the interpretation of the statutes. The point has been made—and really the Minister has not helped us very much here—that the Bill is purely permissive and that when it is passed nothing will happen. No brick has been made and no house has been built, and unless the Minister is prepared to take the country into his confidence and say what he is prepared to do we have not a clue as to what value we can put on this particular effort while the present Government remain in power.
It was suggested in some quarters, although perhaps not with authority nor accuracy, that H.M. Government was contemplating a substantial reduction in the size of houses to be erected. I hope that the Minister is not going on with that. In Oldham, the roofs have already come down a foot, from 8ft. 6 ins. to 7 ft. 6 ins. That is a substantial diminution, and houses are in this Bill, although not in the country. I will not pursue that point, but I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister.
What sort of town development is envisaged? It must be substantial development, on lines which are adequate, with proper accommodation, and on lines which adequately provide the necessary ancillary and public services needed. I have expressed very grave doubts about industrial development, and about how far the wording of the Bill allows it to go on. We have the assurance of the Minister that it is so, and he has told us that he would not rule out industrial development as part of the scheme. But, I do hope that, at once, after this Bill has passed through another place, and has received Her Majesty's assent, he will see that there is a public and clear statement of intentions.
I hope that there will be a very clear pamphlet telling councils just what they can do. All the councils concerned should be given the fullest information, what amount of money can be allocated, and information about the type of schemes which are to be encouraged. I have said, and will repeat, that one of the really important matters is the expansion of the type referred to earlier at Worsley, where Salford and Manchester are concerned in a joint scheme.
It is an excellent scheme, and nothing would be better for industrial Lancashire than that two or three adjacent towns should pull together to develop a new and virgin area, where there could be adequate public services, and industrial premises, and towns developed on the really good basis we have always sought. Not little towns, from which people are thrown on to buses every morning, and travelling back 15 miles at night; but places where everything is comprehended in a single plan, amounting to what is virtually a new town, erected by adjoining boroughs, all of which, in Lancashire, are suffering from overspill.

Mr. Harold Davies: May I interrupt my hon. Friend to say that everybody seems very enthusiastic about pushing out into virgin areas. Will he tell me, from what seems to be his very comprehensive knowledge of this Bill, and of the protection provided by it, what is to happen to rural areas and farmers and others when local authorities want to come out and take the harvest because they are anxious to cut the sod in order to build?
Clause 17 seems to give greater powers than ever; greater power seems to be given to local authorities to acquire land willy-nilly. By the time my hon. Friend has played off the local authorities, and by the time the military authorities and the town and country planners have come in, there will be no land on which to grow any food with which to protect this country.

Mr. Hale: I recognise that there are two points of view; I recognise all these difficulties. We have to consider the policy of the economic use of agricultural land, but as I read the Bill there is practically no compulsory power at all. If a receiving area is not prepared to receive houses, they do not have to do


it. The Minister has limited compulsory powers to which reference has been made, but the main intention is that everything should be done by agreement. My hon. Friend, who has a natural interest in agriculture, should realise that at the moment land is about the only thing upon which we can build houses. Politicians have built numerous scaffolds in the air, but they have not provided accommodation for the overflow from Oldham.
Mountain tops are not much use for building. In these circumstances, it is almost inevitable that some flat land which might be available for agriculture, will have to be used for building. We are out to develop our agricultural productivity, but this is one of the problems we have to face. If I try to answer my hon. Friend fully, I am certain I should be told I am getting a little off the Bill. I suggest that he waits for the next Highland development debate for a suggestion as to how to make more agricultural or productive land available.
We have had a useful and helpful discussion. I think the position is much clearer than it was, and I have the feeling that even the Minister was getting fully to understand the Bill as the debate proceeded and we were getting more and more to a general line of agreement. Those of us who are concerned with the over-populated areas most sincerely hope that these powers will be used, widely used, and used as speedily as possible, having regard to the great difficulty of negotiation between councils, the difficulty of planning beforehand and the laying out of sewers, roads, and so on, before we can get on with the actual building of houses. It is a very useful Measure—but useful only to the extent to which it is used. I can give the Minister the assurance that we on this side of the House will be most happy to see its powers exercised.

Mr. Marples: I must hasten to thank the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for the help he has given to the consideration of this Bill in Committee and the speedy examination on Report stage. I must, also, commiserate with the public for having to dispense with his services when we had the advantage of having them tonight.
The most important point raised was the question of deemed consent. It was raised by the hon. Member for Welling-

borough (Mr. Lindgren) and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). Perhaps I can deal with that rather fully. From a strictly legal point of view Clause 20, which is the Clause referred to by the hon. Gentleman, is not necessary. That was made clear on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend and in the course of the Committee stage. It does not alter the law, but merely declares what the law is. It makes it clear beyond a peradventure. The expression deemed to be granted was introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act, Section 35, for this reason.
It often happens that something which ought to be done, and which everybody agrees ought to be done, or has been decided by the appropriate authority after due inquiry ought to be done, requires the authorisation of more than one Department of State. The device of a deemed planning permission was introduced so that two or more necessary approvals could be given in one instance. For example, in a large-scale development the most important thing to decide is, first of all, whether it should be done at all. That rests primarily with the planning authority in any area, as all hon. Members know. That is the county borough or the county council. That authority is the responsible authority.
If the planning authority refuses permission, or imposes conditions which are thought to be unreasonable, there is a right of appeal to the Minister on the general plan. In most cases an inquiry is held and the Minister makes his decision. Nothing in the Town Development Bill alters that procedure, but it may happen that if a broad scheme is approved, the particular developments which are essential to be done require special authorisation from different Government Departments.
For example, the building of a fire station or a school can be authorised by the Minister primarily concerned without specific planning permission first being given. The planning authority and, if necessary, the planning Minister are consulted by the authorising Minister who may then give a deemed permission. This should be given at one and the same time as he gives his own authorisation. In a word, "deemed to be granted" deals with the smaller individual project within the large scheme.
My right hon. Friend quite admits that the number of cases in which this deeming plays an important role is strictly limited. It is, nevertheless, a very convenient piece of machinery. My right hon. Friend wants me to assure the House that neither he nor his predecessors nor, he thinks, his successors will use this piece of time-saving machinery to get round or stultify the main planning procedure to be used to give planning approval to a town development scheme in general. It will be used merely for the purpose which has been described—that is, small, individual projects within the large planning scheme.
But there is some anxiety about the real effectiveness of the planning system in regard to the kind of schemes contemplated under this Bill. So my right hon. Friend has asked me to make a further declaration. It may well be that while the planning authority—that is to say, the county council—may approve and give planning approval to a town development which is to be undertaken for the benefit of an exporting county borough, the receiving district of that county might have objections; but the county district is not the planning authority, and it is a natural anxiety of the planning authority. Where do they stand, and how are they able to express their point of view?
The answer is this. My right hon. Friend does not believe that the county planning authority would lightly override strongly expressed views of one of its own districts. They would probably weigh most carefully all that is said, for, after all, the plans contemplated under this Bill are likely to fall to the ground unless they are really made by willing agreement between all the parties concerned. They cannot be approved in any other way. Nevertheless, should such a situation occur, if there is an objection to the project as a whole on planning grounds by the receiving authority and that authority wants a public inquiry, there will be a public local inquiry. My right hon. Friend emphasises this. He says, "on planning grounds." It must not be misunderstood; it is on planning grounds, and planning grounds only.
There may be arguments on other points regarding this scheme—for example, who is to do it, what is the pro-

portion of the burden placed on a particular district, what is the amount of Treasury assistance, and so on. But that is not the same thing. It is on planning grounds, and if the authority want a public inquiry, then there will be an inquiry.
The question of the amount of the Treasury assistance and who is to do it will be settled by methods within this Bill by agreement, with the final overriding power of the Minister to decide; but on the planning issue—that is to say, whether the thing should happen at all—there will be a public local inquiry. My right hon. Friend, when he refers to objection, means objection of substance when all the methods of conciliation and negotiation have been exhausted. I hope that that meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.
At this late, or early, hour I do not think the House would like me to answer in detail some of the excellent legal points put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), except one. That one he mentioned during the Committee stage, on Report stage and has referred to it now on Third Reading. He asked why Clause 2 (4) should have the words "thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one" inserted.
On that date the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough made a statement, as a result of which many local authorities started negotiations in good faith, anticipating that the Bill would eventually become law. Those local authorities who began the negotiations in good faith, and whose schemes come within the ambit of this Bill as it now is, and which we hope will become an Act, are themselves eligible for benefit. Because they are that is the reason the date was inserted in the Clause.

Mr. Paget: Instead of having a long subsection why not make the Clause read "after the passing of this Act" instead of "thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one"?

Mr. Marples: That would not meet the points we had in mind. It would meet cases other than those coming within the ambit of this Act.
There is only one other point I might deal with. It is one which was raised


by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who often interests us. He said that his party must take some blame because they had not put down Amendments to improve the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) claimed that this Bill was his, and that the Bill as originally drafted was a Socialist Measure, but the redrafting is something for which the hon. and learned Gentleman claims all the credit. He ought to have a word with his right hon. Friend because of this claim. It is obvious that the gap between the Front and back benches of the Opposition has widened, and not narrowed, recently.
This Bill has been welcomed by all parties. It will make a contribution to the housing problem and will give relief to overcrowded and congested areas and help decentralisation from the congested areas.

Mr. Bing: I think the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me, is doing an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who said this on Second Reading—making it clear that he was not responsible for the drafting:
I am the father of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman discovered a lively infant on his arrival in his Department and he has completed the clothing of it. I am not committed to all the details of the clothing, as embodied in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 741.]
It is the clothing to which we object, and it is only fair to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that he was not responsible for the form in which the Bill now comes forward.

Mr. Marples: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough he would have heard that his hon. Friend contradicted that speech of his right hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman must pay attention to what his Front Bench say and do.

Mr. Mikardo: What shocking advice.

Mr. Marples: We have been saying that for six years and that greatly confirms how right we were in that period.
This is a good Bill. It will enable building to take place in the right place. Above all, I must emphasise that unless local authorities do get together in agreement there is no hope of the Bill succeed-

ing. If every hon. Member will do his best, not to set one local authority against another—a receiving authority against an exporting authority, or the reverse—but to make sure that they work harmoniously together, whether it be Oldham or Chadderton, we shall succeed.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF"GERMAN ENEMY DEBT"12, 13 & 14 GEO. 6. c. 85.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.12 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am in a very curious difficulty about Clause 1, which I do not understand. We are, unfortunately, in the position that, although this Bill comes to us from the House of Lords, we have had very little information about it. The total discussion in another place on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report and Third Reading occupied precisely 15 minutes, and the Second Reading in this House occupied 17 minutes.
I think we have reached the stage when we ought to try to find out what this Bill is about. Some of the questions which I deemed important have not been answered at all. Clause 1 is the really effective part of the Bill, in fact, nearly the whole of the Bill. We are in this position. It is said that, when the Act of 1949 was passed, these bearer bonds were left out because no one had found any way in which we could establish who were the owners of these bearer bonds before the war at the effective date.
Now, it has been said, after consideration by the Morison Committee, in connection with these bearer bonds referred to in Clause 1, that it is possible for any British subject who was the owner on the effective date—I think it was November, 1951—to make a claim as a creditor. There is nothing in the Bill to show how the claim arises, or on what basis it is


to be presented. I think we ought to be told. Most of these securities were virtually worthless throughout the war, though they have changed hands several times.
Clause 1 (a)states:
(a) in respect of any bond of the City of Saarbruecken 6 per cent. Sterling Loan of 1928, being a bond enfaced in accordance with the Supplementary Agreement for the execution of Article 2 of the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight;
I take it that the reason why the Saarbruecken Loan is in a separate category is because there was a procedure for enfacement carried out. If, six months ago, I bought £100 of City of Saarbruecken 6 per cent. Sterling Loan at a price of £20, am I to be credited with £100 or £20? I think it is material. Is anyone who has speculated upon the possible rise of Germany in these last few months to be entitled to claim as a creditor? Do they claim for the nominal value, or only for the price they paid, which was very much lower?

Mr. Harold Davies: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? If my memory serves me right, when the Bill came up in another place, it was said that there was a limited number of German corporation stocks held here by British subjects, and it was specifically stated that they would rank for claims, and that a limited sum of money had been received and was deposited in this country, so that there is in existence in this country a limited sum of money, and it would be possible for the Government to answer the question which my hon. Friend has asked, if they will reveal what that limited sum of money is at the present time.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Hale: We have had great difficulty in getting very much information on these matters, which were always matters, I may say, of considerable complexity. Many small people preferred to forgo their claims rather than go through a long and complicated procedure to establish their claims. It does seem to be a curious habit that both Front Benches should be giving financial claims greater prominence than moral claims; but I understand that there is a feeling of responsibility on the part of the Government that they should give some sort of relief to

the owners of these particular bonds. There is a moral obligation on the Government in this matter, because it must be remembered that they were funds invested in London to assist Germany's re-armament programme against Russia and the Government of the day gave the City of London great encouragement to lend money to enable Germany to build her great submarine fleet.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is shocking.

Mr. Hale: That is very shocking indeed, I agree, and it is very shocking, too, that the wheel has come full circle with a Tory Government talking about giving financial assistance to Germany as a bulwark again against Russia.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order. Is all this in order on the Committee stage of a Bill? Are these not matters which could properly have been disposed of in the debate on Second Reading?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I was about to intervene.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Surely, as this is a one Clause Bill, all matters arising on the Bill can be raised on the first Clause? The second Clause is merely the Title of the Bill, and therefore anything in order on Second Reading would be in order in discussing this Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is that the Clause stand part of the Bill and we can only discuss what is in the Clause itself.

Mr. Hale: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord should intervene, because in bringing in the Bill in another place the noble Lord who introduced it said:
The issue and placing of some of these loans by the German and Austrian Governments was actually done with the commendation of the British Government of the day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords,6th March, 1952, c. 560.]
He gave that reason why the holders of these bonds should receive this particular and rather special treatment. We are passing an Act of Parliament solely to permit bearer-owners to participate in whatever payment is to be made to German creditors. It is not contended that the people who will now claim had


anything to do with these bonds before the war. It is part of the case, as made in another place, that they have frequently changed hands. It is said that this is the only way we can deal with this, because we cannot find out who owned them before the war. It is common knowledge that they stood at a low figure, and were bought at a low price.
It is said that we have responsibility because we, as a people, persuaded these people to buy the bonds. We financed the great expansion of German arms industry in the years which followed. I want especially to know whether it is clear that no one will be able to claim as a creditor for more than he has invested. Unless the 1949 Act covered that point—and I do not think it did— it seems to me that an Amendment must become necessary.

Mr. Bing: It would be of help to the Committee if it were given some indication of what is likely to be the total of German debt payments; because whether we include in the settlement another class of people who may, or may not, be more or less deserving, may depend upon the total sum available. Perhaps the Financial Secretary has later information to give, but I understand that the offer at the moment is about one per cent. That is another grave disadvantage of going in for German re-armament. The Germans even now are in a position——

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. Bing: With respect, it arises in the sense that it is a reason for postponing further consideration, or dealing with this matter, until we know what is going to happen, and how much money we are going to get for our German assets.
We ought to have some indication of the amount which is to be available. Are we going to get the whole of the amount? I hope the hon. Gentleman will give some indication of the sums we can expect. Is it 1 per cent., 2 per cent., or 3 per cent? What are to be the percentages of risk as against the sums covered in the 1949 Act? Is this an increase of 10, 15, 20 per cent. or is it an even higher increase? What proportion of the total outstanding German liabilities are the securities which are contained in the Schedule? What sort of amounts are outstanding as com-

pared with the other amounts outstanding? These are the sort of facts the Government should give to the Committee to enable us to discuss this Clause with rather more information than we have at the moment.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget (Northampton): rose——

The Deputy-Chairman: Order——

Mr. Paget: With great respect I have not spoken to the Clause, and I was on my feet when the Question was put.

The Deputy-Chairman: When I got up to put the Question there was no hon. Gentleman on his feet in any part of the Committee. I did not, however, collect the voices, and I now call the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: Surely we are going to have a reply? The Government have not told us anything. We have asked a number of questions, and surely the Minister, whom we are glad to see in his new office, is not going to treat us with such discourtesy on a Bill of which he is in charge? Surely it is not unreasonable for an Opposition, whose duty it is to examine legislation, to ask what are the sums involved, and what is the outstanding debt which we are asked to bring in and rank for this payment. If there is going to be no reply, perhaps it would be convenient for me to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. Frederick Willey: I join in this appeal to the Minister. After all, last night he gave an explanation to the House when none was asked for.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not going to accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Willey: I join in this appeal to the Minister. Last night he gave a long explanation to the House when none was called for by any hon. Member. This is an extraordinary procedure.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of order. To what Motion is the hon. Gentleman speaking?

Mr. Willey: I was speaking on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I thought that was obvious.
It is certainly an extraordinary position if, when hon. Members on this side of the Committee ask for an explanation of the Clause, we get no explanation, and that when no explanation is asked of the Government on a matter which is patently self-obvious, we get one. I want to know how we are going to be treated and why we cannot have an explanation of this Clause which is the only Clause in this Bill.

Mr. Harold Davies: I appeal to the Minister through you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to answer two simple questions that were put from this side of the Committee about Clause 1. They were quite relevant and are worthy of some attention from the opposite side of the Committee. My hon. Friend asked, in the definition of the German enemy debt, how much was outstanding. Is it 1 per cent, or 10 per cent.? I noted roughly from memory, although I made a few notes while my hon. Friend was speaking, a statement made in the other place that specific amounts had been paid into this country.
At least this Committee is entitled to know on Clause 1 what is the amount of the German debt that has been paid into this country at the present moment. It will be very remiss of the Minister if he does not answer that question, and he will be treating the Committee with the utmost disrespect. A famous Prime Minister from that side of the House speaking at Lausanne in June, 1932—then known as Mr. Chamberlain—said that we were then owed by the Germans—Did the hon. Gentleman want to say something?

Mr. John Profumo: I was only asking what other name Mr. Chamberlain was ever known by.

Mr. Davies: In June, 1932, Mr. Chamberlain told the world at that conference that this little country was owed——

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I do not know what that has to do with this Clause.

Mr. Davies: Mr. Hopkin Morris, if you would be kind enough to wait until I finish the sentence, you will probably see the relevancy of it. He told the world that we were owed £2,000 million by the

Germans, and we were scaling that down to such an extent under the Lausanne Conference debt talks that we were only receiving two-thirds of it. And the German repayment of debt only covered one-half of what we were paying to the U.S.A. to meet our commitments.
The relevancy is this. What is the position of the German debts today? What percentage of the debts have we received today? And if there is any priority at all, why should it be given to the holders of bearer bonds? Consequently, due to the entire economic problem of war debts and reparations in this last generation, this Committee is entitled to get an answer on the amount of war debts that have been paid to this country under the new definition of German debts given to the Committee under Clause 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Bing: I am sure the Minister does not intend to be so intentionally discourteous to the Committee as he appears to be. He is probably a victim of the rather peculiar way in which business is conducted by the Lord Privy Seal. He did not announce to the House that this business was going to be taken and he probably did not tell the Minister either. But a certain time has now elapsed and it is to be hoped that the Minister will by now have this information which I suggest he should either give to the Committee, or else should consult with one of the Whips and suggest that we should adjourn this debate until such time as this information can be given.
I know that my hon. Friends are going to press for it, and it is information which the Committee ought to have before they proceed with this Measure. There is probably a sound argument for passing it. It seems to me merely to follow out the principles which we adopted in 1949, but in payment of those debts there are things we ought to look at.
When we passed the 1949 legislation we had greater hopes of getting more money out of the Germans than we have today. The external policy has affected our prospects there. What prospects have we of getting any money? Again, what is the percentage, as I said before, of these securities listed here compared with the total liability?
I do not know whether there is anything further which the Minister can say with regard to the Morison Committee.


One appreciates the arguments which were put forward by that Committee in regard to this matter, but I must say I am always a little unhappy about the payment of these bearer bonds. I hope, therefore, we shall now hear from the hon. Gentleman, who has, perhaps, now had an opportunity of recovering from the embarrassing situation in which he was placed by the Lord Privy Seal, and is in a position to help the Committee with the facts.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman an accurate and definite figure, but I think it is somewhere in the region of £15.7 million. As for hon. Members' criticism of my not getting up to speak on this, I would remind them that it is an extremely technical matter and that the real implication is that we are taking 10 series of bearer bonds and also the Saarbruecken Loan which was specially treated by the prewar German Government and treating them on a par with the Dawes and other Reich loans which this country underwrote.
The late Government, I think, rightly, set up the Morison Committee and I think we are right in accepting its recommendations. It is a technical matter which really involves the point that bearer bonds are so easily transferable, and at the time when the Dawes and Young Loans were specifically dealt with we took the view that these bearer bonds should not be treated in the same way because there was a danger that foreign nationals might gain an advantage.
The Committee which reported to the late President of the Board of Trade took an opposite view. In this Bill we are simply following the recommendations of that Committee. I do not wish to be in the least discourteous to the Committee. As I have said, it is a very technical matter and the Bill is one which removes difficulties that would otherwise be insuperable. I hope that may be so, but, if it is not, it may be necessary to look at this matter again.

Mr. Hale: Will the Minister say whether these bearer bonds are going to be assessed at the cost to the purchaser or whether they will rank at their face value?

Mr. Mackeson: I could not say. I think it will be the Stock Exchange value on the day that the Order was issued.

Mr. Bing: I should just like to add, now that we have had an answer—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think we are pressing him too hard—that we should like him to say how far this payment is linked with the funding of the pre-war German debts. From what I can follow from accounts in the Press, it would appear that the offers being made are very poor indeed; only some 1 per cent. of the total debt is being offered.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Bing: It does seem, with great respect, to be of the utmost importance that we should know how much money is coming in. I hope we shall get some information from the Minister.

Mr. Mackeson: I do not think there is any connection between the two.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Hale: Could we have a short explanation before the Schedule is agreed to? It does seem that some of the items in it appear to be unusual. It may be that each and every one of these items has some German guarantee, but the Potash Syndicate of Germany 25-year Sinking Fund Gold Loan would not appear to be a Government guaranteed issue, and the Prussian Electric Company 6 per cent. 25-year Sterling Bonds seem to sound like what is normally a debenture investment in a public company rather than a Government loan. Perhaps we could have a short explanation.

Mr. Mackeson: It is rather confusing, but all these particular issues were dealt in in exactly the same way as the Reich, Young and Dawes loans. It is for that reason that the City of Saarbruecken Loan is included in the Bill, but that particular issue was specially treated. Hon. Members doubtless know that there was a special situation in Germany so far as local government was concerned.

Mr. Paget: I hope that, on Third Reading, the information for which we have asked will have been obtained so that it can be given to us then.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Mackeson.]

Mr. Bing: Would it not be more convenient, if the hon. Gentleman feels that he could deal with this matter at some other time, that we should defer the Third Reading? He admits that it is a most complex Bill, and if there are outstanding queries, perhaps it would be better that he should obtain advice than that we should have the Third Reading straight away. If he feels that he must proceed at all costs, then let him, but, in the atmosphere of good will which obtains, could he not leave the matter over and give us, say, 10 minutes on some other occasion when he would have the information for which we ask?

Mr. Paget: May I add a word to that plea?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The Question before the House is, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Paget: With regard to this, can the Minister tell us whether there is any immediate urgent reason why the Bill is needed at once? If it is, will he undertake to make a statement and give us the information for which we have asked and to which we are quite entitled? If not, can we now adjourn this matter for a day or two just to get the Minister's statement and the information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member must direct his mind to the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Mackeson: If the hon. and learned Member wishes to put down questions on this complicated subject, which is extremely narrow for debate on Third Reading, I shall be only too pleased to answer them. I feel I should be quite out of order if I attempted to answer them now, and I am sure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would object if I did so.

Mr. Paget: Personally I should be quite satisfied if the Minister undertakes to answer these questions.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CHEESE AND TEA RATIONS

3.47 a.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 977), dated 15th May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be annulled.
The Order we are now discussing is, I am glad to say, a fairly small Order, and after the long disquisitions we have had tonight and after all the previous Bills it is refreshing to return to this comparatively easy matter. Article 1 says that coupon means coupon, fat means fat, cheese means cheese, and butter means butter, and it goes on to give a definition of vegetable butter, which apparently contains other material, but for some reason complies with the Order, although the Ministry do not like to admit it. It is a consolidating Order which keeps stable the very low ration of these commodities we have had to endure for the last few weeks.
I do not propose to say very much about fats, and I do not propose to say more than a word or two about tea. I propose to say something about cheese, a commodity for which I have a keen interest. About tea I would only recall an anecdote told by Viscount Castlerosse about a visit to a country house in the years before the war. On his first day he was approached by the butler, who asked what he would like to have served in bed in the morning—tea, coffee, cocoa or yoghourt. He replied that, on the whole, he would prefer tea. "Very good" said the butler, making a note on his shirt cuff, "and from what country would you like it—India, China or Ceylon?" Viscount Castlerosse said he thought he would prefer China. The butler then asked from what state in China he would like it—Lapsang, Souchong, Oolong or Teenmun—and his choice was Souchong.
Things have altered since then. In spite of all the efforts of the Co-ordinat-


ing Minister, whose lips are sealed, we have reached the point where one's host says, "Would you like a glass of health salts or canned prunes before you get up?" and that is about all the selection he has. Despite all the talk from the noble Lord about tea and its increasing quantity and so on, my experience is that tea is in shorter supply today than it has ever been in our history.
I want to be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter. I have heard it said, perhaps a little maliciously, that Parliamentary Secretaries are used to announce reductions in rations and Ministers are used to announce increases. But we have had no increases, and the result is that the Parliamentary Secretary is having to do the whole of the Parliamentary work of the Ministry of Food. He has always shown an interest in food, and we welcome that. I hope he will forgive me for saying this, but in years gone by one of the minor nuisances associated with the radio was that if the set was switched on a few moments before the news or if one left it a few moments too late——

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that on these occasions one must adhere strictly to the Order. The hon. Member seems to be going very far beyond it.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we have the precedent of the debate which took place on the same issue last year, when the situation was reversed and when a Prayer was being moved against the Cheese Order. I was relying on that precedent, when there was a very wide discussion on the matter. I submit to you, with respect, that the question of the utility of cheese as part of our ration and the question of its importance in our diet are matters which are relevant to this Order.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Member was talking about radio or broadcasts, or something of that sort.

Mr. Hale: No, I was doing that purely geographically. I was talking about the utterances of the Parliamentary Secretary, who used to point out to us the importance of calories, vitamins and so on in this connection, and the high protein quality of cheese and its great importance

in our diet. I was merely mentioning the word "radio" as the purely geographical location of the important announcements that the Parliamentary Secretary used to make.
I have referred to the fact that there was a debate on this matter in somewhat different circumstances 12 months ago. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford South (Squadron Leader Cooper) in his place, because I did mention to him that I might make some reference to some of the things that were said on that occasion. As he has been good enough to be here, I will come straight to one of his own observations. He made three substantial points. The hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion said
The point is that cheese of all sorts is available in all countries for everybody to buy, except the Socialist Minister of Food.
That was either true or untrue. Does the hon. and gallant Member now say that it was true?

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Perfectly true.

Mr. Hale: If so, what has happened to the cheese? Is it still available to buy? We were told last year that the reduction of the cheese ration from three to two ounces would imperil the health of the nation. We were told that there was cheese everywhere to be bought. What are the relevant figures? I have taken the trouble to turn them up. In the four months ending February last—the first four effective months of the present Government—we imported 52,000 tons of cheese. In the four months before the present Government came into office, we imported 76,000 tons. In the four months ending February, 1951, we imported 77,000 tons.
There has been a deliberate diminution of 25,000 tons of cheese in the few months since this Government took office, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the world was full of cheese and could be bought anywhere. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on:
The fact is that the whole policy of the Ministry of Food in providing sustenance for the people of this country has failed dismally.
That was during a temporary period of a two-ounce ration. Now we have a one-ounce ration. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised his voice in protest about that? Has he given the Minister of


Food the benefit of his advice? Has he told him where all the cheese is, or is he now prepared to defend the fact that the ration has been reduced by a half?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman ended by saying:
This is just one more sorry example of the ineptitude which has been displayed by the Ministry of Food in the last five years and of which the people of this country will show their condemnation in no uncertain manner when the opportunity arises."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 767–8.]

Squadron Leader Cooper: They did. We are here; the hon. Gentleman is over there.

Mr. Hale: But the ration has been reduced from a figure which I did not consider as satisfactory. In 12 months it has been halved. During that debate, the hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave us the benefit of his observations. What he said was of very great interest. He said:
Let the Parliamentary Secretary look back into the files of his Department to the time when Lord Woolton was in charge.
Let him look back to the time when the Lord Privy Seal, who is charged with the co-ordination of food and agriculture, and who says his lips are sealed, was in charge. We have arrived back at that time again, and the noble Lord is there again, with almost despotic powers. He is referred to in political circles as one of the "Overlords". Then the Financial Secretary finished his remarks, during which he observed:
The total of high-class protein available for consumers in this country has been lowered further below a level which most medical opinion has always regarded as dangerously low."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 764–5.]
Now we get a reduction by half.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food has always emphasised the protein value of milk and cheese. His first action was to stick 4d. on the price of milk, and now he cuts cheese by a half. We also have the benefits of the hon. Gentleman's writings. On Euston Station the other day I came across a book "The Guide to Health," by the "Radio Doctor." There was a portrait on the dust jacket which showed that science had been combined with art in the most tasteful possible manner.
There was a section on cheese beginning at page 52. I think it gave a most valuable food for thought, if that is the only kind of food we can have. I did not buy the book, because the Chancellor's credit policy prevailed. But I had a snoop at it. The section on cheese began—like Caesar's Gallic Wars —by saying that all cheese is divided into three parts; one part of which is water, another protein, but I cannot remember what the third was.
He then gave a somewhat indelicate account—I speak as a lawyer and not as a medical man—of what happened to a small morsel of cheese when it came into contact with those internal gales which he referred to in the generic term of mind. He finally defended cheese against the City alderman who used to complain it was the cause of his matutinal indigestion. Nowadays, it would be difficult for even a small alderman to make a complaint of that kind while the present ration remains.
I would remind the House of one or two other matters. The circumstances of the debate last year were, of course, something quite exceptional. It is pleasant to be able to recall them after the protests of the last few hours. At about 9 o'clock, the House was deserted, placid and calm, but at 10 o'clock the "Banstead Harriers" came in in full cry. From every telephone box and lavatory Tory Members came from their concealment with the mental equivalent of "Yoicks."

Mr. Speaker: All this reminiscence is out of order. It has nothing to do with the merits of the Prayer which is being moved.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. My introductory sentences were too long.
When that Motion was carried against the Government and when a humble Address was to be presented to annul the Order, we were greeted with cries of "Resign" from these benches. What were we to resign for? To enable a Tory Government to give us more cheese. That was the object. That is what it was said would be done.
Surely, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why he has failed. So far as one can judge, it is the deliberate policy decision of the Government not to buy the


cheese. They have deliberately bought 25,000 tons less in the last six months than was bought by the previous Government, and they have deliberately decided that they are not prepared to spend money on buying cheese to supplement the ration. If that be so, the Parliamentary Secretary ought to consider resignation, because it is quite contrary to all he said on this matter when in opposition. I venture to suggest to him that he would add to his already high reputation if he protested against a policy which he knows to be inimical to the health of the people.
I do not want to labour this matter now. I make one final point. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made a point in the debate last year which is very material today, and which is very surprising. I used to think, in the days before the war, that cheese was a thing which everybody could have. Cheese and onions was a staple supper, and a very good supper it was, too. We who lived in the Stilton country, where good cheese is produced, thought that everybody got ample cheese. It was the normal practice for men to take half a loaf of bread and a piece of cheese. In point of fact, it does appear that, in those golden days of Tory misrule before the war, there was never a 2 oz. ration. Lots of us were eating pounds of it.
When hon. Members opposite were praying last year about the temporary reduction from 3 oz. to 2 oz., they were perhaps a little factious in their comments. The time has come when the Parliamentary Secretary should say whether it is the deliberate policy of the Government or not. The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, and has often talked in the past, a great deal about calories, vitamins and things that should be in every pantry. I can imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary could sympathise much more with the poet who said that life would be much easier if we did not have to eat. I hope he will face this matter quite frankly, and if he does, I think he must tell the House that the British public are being subjected to a deliberate policy of failing to buy necessary and important food for purely Treasury reasons.

4.5 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to second the Motion.
I want to reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend with a few further facts. As he has explained, this Order deals with tea, fats and cheese. So far as tea is concerned, it is quite obvious now that the housewives will get an increased ration solely through pressure from these benches and from the tea trade.
On 7th April I asked the Minister, in view of the increased stocks then, to increase the tea ration. He said he could not do that for two reasons—that the increase in world production was slow and that he had to build up stocks. Two days later, following pressure from these benches and after pressure from the trade —which pointed out that this was not only unfair to the housewives, but also to the trade, as they were carrying an impossible financial burden—he said he would increase the ration on 10th August.
This Order does not provide for an increase in the tea ration on 10th August. It has brought the date forward to July. As we have been sitting late, I have been able to do some research work in the Library and I find from the printed copy of the presentation copy of this Order that, as the Minister had stated, there was an announcement that the ration would be increased on 10th August; but that an alteration has been made in manuscript by the Minister altering the date to 13th July. What had happened between the printing of this Order and the manuscript alteration by the Minister? The Labour Opposition had given notice that they would raise the question of food in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food should tell the House how much has been expended by the Stationery Office in printing this Order and then having to print it again. At what date did the Minister change his mind and again give way?
I explained last night, when dealing with tea prices, why these increases had been carried out in this way. What is quite obvious is that the Ministry of Food have been most reluctant to offer the housewives the benefit of the increased ration at the cheaper price. This is really a vindictive, harsh attack upon the housewives.
This Order also deals with fats. The Parliamentary Secretary will say that his difficulty about cheese is that he has been unable to buy dollar cheese. Why on earth, then, has he bought this year an


enormous quantity of dollar lard? I explained last year that we had then made exceptionally large purchases of lard which goes on the fat ration—but they nowhere compared with the amount of lard that we have obtained this year presumably from dollar sources. Last year we obtained in the first four months rather less than 10,000 tons of lard, but this year we have already obtained between 55,000 and 60,000 tons.
Lard obtained in these last four months has cost more than £8 million. When we discussed the food position, the Minister of Food said, "The position of oils and fats is quite as favourable as it was last year." In those circumstances, when we can get oils and fats from the sterling area, why go to the dollar area for lard? If we are going to get dollar aid, why could not we say to the Americans, who the Parliamentary Secretary has told us have surplus supplies of cheese, "We are desperately short of cheese; we have oils and fats. We would like the lard. It was very helpful to us last year; but why cannot we have some cheese?"
In the last Parliament we used to hear a good deal from these benches about exports. Why has the Parliamentary Secretary increased exports of cheese? We find in the Trade and Navigation Accounts that when we are on a 1-oz. ration we have, during four months of this year, exported more cheese than we did last year. I concede that the amount of cheese we are exporting would not help us in any appreciable way towards saving the ration; but after hon. Gentlemen made such an issue of this last year they are surely open to criticism from their own back benchers.
Regarding the cheese position, I can reinforce my hon. Friend's argument with a few more facts. What the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister of Food and his "Overlord," have done is to halve the cheese ration. We have reached a record low level. The position is deteriorating, because while in April the Minister said he could not hold out hope of a bigger ration for some months, in the debate on food recently he said he did not think he could hold the 1-oz. ration fully throughout the year. I would add to what has been said that it is only the present food administrators who have ever managed to run a 1-oz. ration of

cheese. The only time this country had such a ration before was when the Germans broke through on the Eastern front and we were in a desperate position.
It is not a question of maintaining a 3-oz. ration for which the Conservative Opposition fought so strenuously in the last Parliament, but of trying to maintain a cheese ration which is at a low level which indeed only obtained for a short period during the war. Moreover, in the open general licence cuts, cheese has suffered heavily. This will have a harmful effect on us. The Parliamentary' Secretary may say that it is negligible, but it is going to have a drastic effect, because all livestock products have to be maintained over a period. If production falls it takes years to build it up again. If the markets are lost, they may be lost for ever. Since 1945 we have built up very substantial markets in Denmark, Holland and Switzerland. They have now, without notice, been drastically cut, and now we have this low level of rationed cheese.
This, as my hon. Friend demonstrated, is not due to the stock position. In fact, we received in 1951 over 40,000 tons more cheese than in 1950. It has nothing to do with stocks or the supply position. In fact, I am pleased to note that in the last month we had very good supplies of cheese which emphasises the very serious difficulties that we are now facing, because I gather from the figures that we must be making it quite clear to those countries on which we depend that we are not in a position to buy all the cheese they might send us.
The New Zealand figures for April are excellent, but, in spite of these signs, the Minister feels himself obliged to say that he doubts whether he will be able to keep the 1-oz. ration throughout the year. The explanation given so far by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary is that it is due to two causes—the dollar difficulties facing the country and the short-fall from New Zealand. On what estimate is this short-fall based, because it would be a catastrophic thing for us if we were unable to pay even sterling supplies of essential foodstuffs.
It is for the Parliamentary Secretary to make out his case, because in fact we have had substantial dollar supplies of other things. Why have we not had cheese? One of the things I emphasised


in the debate last year was that we had taken great advantage of dollar cheese. We got it at a good price and it was due to those supplies that we were able to lift the ration from 2 to 3 oz. In fact, that contribution enabled us to have a 3-oz. ration for several months. In any case, this is cold comfort now, because I doubt whether we could in fact get any cheese from the Americans at this time of year.
So we have to turn to home production and production in the Southern Dominions. At home the prospects are a bit better, but we can account for only a quarter of the supplies we need. So we turn back to the Southern Dominions, and the question I put again to the Parliamentary Secretary is, what is the basis of his insistence that there is going to be a short-fall from New Zealand? There are one or two troubling things there. Supplies have undoubtedly been affected by freight difficulties. I do not want to say anything which would be taken as any reflection on the New Zealanders. The Ministry of Food and Her Majesty's Government have made repeated requests to New Zealand to speed up the turn-round of boats and loading. We know the dockers worked on Anniversary Day in order to get the supplies out.
But that is only half the story. The other half is that the New Zealanders have criticised us for the arrangements we have made for getting food supplies out of New Zealand. They have been embarrassed by the supplies of food, including cheese, piling up. I should like to know what the Ministry of Food are doing about freight with New Zealand. Last year we had in New Zealand a dock strike. This year we have not had a dock strike there, but we have had complaints by the New Zealand authorities that we are not doing everything to get the freight moving from New Zealand.
It is in this situation that we have come to this extraordinary agreement with Canada—again it may be unavoidable—whereby the New Zealand Meat Board is sending meat to Canada and we are getting Canadian meat from Vancouver. This, it seems to me, will create extraordinary difficulties when at this time the New Zealanders are saying that we are not helping all that we could to get food supplies from New Zealand.
There is another factor which I shall mention, and leave it at that. There was recently the very peculiar incident of the sale of cheese from New Zealand to Canada. It was very extraordinary that New Zealand should be selling cheese to Canada, a great cheese-producing country. In fact, the New Zealand Dairy Products Marketing Commission cancelled the delivery of that 800 tons of cheese.
I would not suggest for a moment that 800 tons of cheese was important to us in terms of rationed cheese, but the incident is important to us because it seems unfortunately to lend more weight to the fears I have about our trade with New Zealand. Why on earth, when this country was crying out for all the cheese she could get, should New Zealanders be trying to sell cheese to Canada? It may be said that this is only an incident in the difficulties of the Commonwealth and the sterling area about dollars, but at any rate it seems to indicate that there is some difficulty in the trade between the Southern Dominions and ourselves.
So the questions I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer are these: Why have we not used for cheese such dollars as we have been obliged to use for food purchases? As far as the Southern Dominions go, what are we doing to encourage the production of butter or cheese, particularly the latter? And as far as the European supplying countries are concerned, what are we doing about them? We cannot believe that we can just cut off those supplies and then turn to those countries again when it suits us.
I would emphasise that the question of the supply of livestock products is a difficult one. It cannot be dealt with in panic by drastic import reductions. We have to look ahead. I believe this cut in the cheese ration, therefore, is a very serious matter. This is a cut to 1 oz., but the Minister is saying that he doubts whether he can even maintain that ration. I think we are entitled to expect from the Parliamentary Secretary a reply to these serious doubts that many of us must hold.

4.24 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has


waited so long and suffered so many delays before making his speech tonight, laid great stress on the nutritive value of cheese. I was glad to note that while on a former occasion he said that he had not touched liquid milk for 48 years, he has now discovered a new interest and belief in the nutritive value of cheese. Anything I have written on that subject still stands; cheese is one of the most important and even today under-rated forms of building food.
I want to dispose first of an issue on tea raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) before returning to the main argument. He has contrived to suggest that it was his own oratory or the activity of the Opposition which was responsible for the change of date, by which the increase of the tea ration took place a month earlier. One thing we were determined upon was not to repeat the appalling mess that occurred when sweets were de-rationed, for this first exercise of raising the ration is but a step towards the complete de-rationing of tea which we hope will take place before the end of the year.
On first calculations we thought we should have to wait until August before we could safely raise the ration; but on further examination, in consultation not with the hon. Gentleman but with the trade, it was decided that the increase could safely be brought forward a month because the arrivals and the prospective arrivals of tea in this country had improved.
To pass to the cheese issue; consumption in this country last year was rather more than 200,000 tons, of which 91,000 tons, if I may give it in round figures, came from New Zealand, and 47,000 tons from North America; and 42,000 tons, not the 60,000 tons which the hon. Gentleman anticipated a year ago, was produced in this country.
There are two reasons why the reduction of the cheese ration has been necessary. First let us face the New Zealand position. New Zealand, anxious to reopen certain alternative markets in the

United States, Canada and Europe has, in fact, sent us rather less than 90 per cent. of her exportable surplus in 1950–51, not 97 per cent, as she did in 1949–50. We should not cavil at that, and I hope that some remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made will not give rise to any misunderstanding.
New Zealand, above all others, has helped this country in this matter of cheese and we must leave to her the decision whether in her own interest she should re-establish in a modest way some trading connections she had before the war. If New Zealand decides to send cheese to Canada, that, I submit, is a matter for New Zealand and not for us. The arrangement about meat between New Zealand, Canada and ourselves was entered into by this country in order to help Canada.
Finally, the main reason the cheese ration has gone down is because we cannot afford to import the 47,000 tons from North America which we imported last year. To a smaller extent the cut in special cheeses from the Continent, previously running at 33,000 tons a year and now cut by about a quarter, has contributed to the cheese shortage. But first and last is the position that we cannot afford to buy dollar cheese, and that cut alone is sufficient to account for the reduction of half an ounce in the cheese ration.
The amazing thing about this discussion has been that there has been practically no reference to the fundamental difficulties confronting this country at the present time, though they are responsible for our inability to pay for the cheese from North America which makes the difference between the two levels of ration.

Mr. Hale: Cheese and butter and nothing else?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes to Five o' Clock, a.m., 13th June. 1952, till this day.